36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10206/2009 ARIF FRUITS & VEGITABLE CO. Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate. Versus AGRCULTURE MARKETINGH PRDUCE COMMITTEE ... Respondent Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Chadda, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 20.07.2009 1. By this writ petition filed in 2009, the petitioner has impugned the rejection letter dated 6th February, 2001. Counsel for the petitioner states that some other persons have challenged similar rejection letters and writ petitions are pending. He has also relied upon the judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No.3423/2001 titled Jamunapar Fruits and Vegetable Commission Agents Vs. GNCT Delhi & ORS. 2. In 1997, a notification was issued for acquisition of land at Subzi Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi and the petitioner alleges that he was working in the said Subzi Mandi and had applied for category B license. As per the writ petition, the petitioner had made the said application in August 1999. By order dated 6th February, 2001, the application was rejected as the petitioner had failed to prove legal rights over the shop/house from where he was operating. The petitioner has alleged that the said order was not communicated to him. 3. It is difficult to believe the contention of the petitioner that impugned order dated 6th February, 2001 was not communicated to him, as alleged. Admittedly, the land occupied and located in Subzi Mandi, Shahdara was acquired in 1997-99 and the market shifted to the new location. In normal course, the petitioner would have verified status of his application and would not have remained quiet after the Subzi Mandi was shifted. The petitioner would have noticed that other traders, who had applied for category B license were issued and granted the said license. The petitioner obviously has not been working in Subzi Mandi since 1999 and has not raised any grievance since then. The petitioner did not make representation. Entertaining the present writ petition after a gap of almost 10 years after the Subzi Mandi was shifted, will create administrative problems, besides encouraging speculators and agents, who will like to take advantage of increase in land prices. 4. The judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 was passed in a writ petition which was filed in the year 2001. In the said judgment, the Court had noticed the status report filed by the respondent that an FIR was registered on the ground of corruption charges against some of the officers of the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC). On the basis of the said status report, the Court in the judgment dated 2nd February, 2009 had directed APMC to examine each license issued and each allotment made during the relevant period and determine whether they can be sustained. Of course, the parties who were granted license were entitled to explain and meet the allegations. I do not think that the said order and directions, can come to the aid of the petitioner, justify the delay or furnish a fresh cause of action. The petitioner, who has filed the present writ petition in 2009 is not in the same class and category, as others, who had filed writ petitions in 2001 or soon thereafter, when they were communicated the rejection order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. JULY 20, 2009 NA/P/VKR