IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12852 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 24.07.2008 M/s Basant Lal Jamer Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners are working as Commission Agents in the vegetable market at Mansa. They are aggrieved against the impugned action of the Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh and Market Committee, Mansa, who are going to shift the vegetable market from the existing notified yard of vegetable market to the new vegetable market, which has been recently established. In the present petition, the petitioners have made the prayer for directing the respondents not to shift the vegetable market to the new vegetable market, established on Sirsa-Barnala road. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and going through the contents of the petition, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of CWP No. 12852 of 2008 -2- its writ jurisdiction. The respondent-Market Committee has been empowered to establish new market yards under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 and the Rules made thereunder. Merely because the present vegetable market is existing since 1975, it cannot be said that the Punjab Mandi Board cannot establish a new vegetable market in the area. After notification of the new market yard, the functioning will start in the said market. The allegations levelled by the petitioners that respondents No.4 and 5 are pressurising them and other vegetable dealers to shift their business to the new vegetable market under construction, because the petitioners had refused to the demand of illegal gratification raised by respondent No.5, are totally vague and without any supporting material. We are of the opinion that that until and unless the old Mandi is de-notified, the petitioners cannot be stopped from doing their business in old market yard. It is not the case of the petitioners that the old vegetable market yard has been de-notified. In the present case, counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that actually there is any threat to the petitioners to shift their business from old vegetable market to the new vegetable market. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 24, 2008 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) ndj JUDGE