GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1046, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1046
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS
v.
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4826-4828 of 2022)
MARCH 03, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Licence – A licence holder, if entitled to allotment of the
auction platform adjacent to and/or in front of his shop as a matter
of right – Held: To do business in the shop and to carry on business
on the auction platform, are both different and distinct – Merely
because a person is having a licence and doing business in a
particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter
of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop – No
such rule and/or regulation and/or guideline supporting such a
claim was brought by the appellant to the notice of the High Court
or even Supreme Court – In absence of any specific rule in favour
of the appellant, right to claim the allotment just in front of his shop
and/or adjacent to the same when the allotment in favour of
respondent No. 5 was made as per the policy and guidelines, High
Court rightly held against the appellant – Therefore, in the absence
of any specific right in his favour, the appellant could not have
prayed for the allotment of shed/auction platform just adjacent to
and/or in front of his shop – Appeals lacks merit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4826-
4828 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.10.2013 in LPA Nos.2130,
2131 of 2011 and dated 17.12.2013 in CM
No.5249 of 2013 in LPA No.
2130 of 2011 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.
P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Harshika Verma,
Tushar Bakshi, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vatsal Joshi, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Bhuvan Kapoor, Varun
Chugh, G.S. Makker, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Dilmrig Nayani, Abhimanyu
Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Tushar Bathija, Shree Pal Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 1046
1046
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1047
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
2130/2011 and 2131/2011 and the subsequent order dated 17.12.2013
passed in CM No. 5249/2013 in LPA No. 2130/2011, by which, the
Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Said Letters
Patent Appeals thereby confirming the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions, the original
writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as
under: -
2.1 That the appellant became the owner of Shop No. 27
situated in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh. Respondent
No. 5 herein was the tenant of the said shop. Both the appellant as
well as respondent No. 5 were holding the requisite licences to do
business in the market area. Ejectment proceedings were initiated
by the appellant against respondent No. 5. The order of ejectment
came to be confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, respondent No.
5 shifted as a tenant to Shop No. 12 in the year 2007 and applied for
change of address to the new shop, however, the same was rejected
and respondent No. 5 was asked to surrender his licence and apply
for new one. The appellant applied for licence for selling fruits/
vegetables and State Agricultural Marketing Board issued
the same.
Since then, the appellant is running the business from Shop No. 27
owned by him. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition before the
High Court challenging the order dated 05.07.2007 by which his
application for change of address to the new Shop No. 12 was
rejected. The order dated 05.07.2007 was stayed. The stay was
continued up to 31.03.2009 i.e., till the validity of licence of respondent
No. 5. That thereafter, the Market Committee, Chandigarh rejected
the application of respondent No. 5 for renewal of licence. The same
was the subject matter of another writ petition before the High Court
being Writ Petition No. 5886/2009. That pursuant to the order passed
by the High Court, respondent No. 5 continued to function as per the
old licence. That the Licence Committee constituted under Licensing
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS v. UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1048
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 decided that the site in the platform
would be allotted on the basis of “One Site One Shop” and the name
of respondent No. 5 was shown as co-allottee along with the appellant.
Aggrieved with this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High
Court, being Writ Petition No. 12684/2009. The High Court by a
common judgment and order dated 26.09.2011 allowed Writ Petition
No. 5886/2009 filed by respondent No. 5 and directed that the licence
of respondent No. 5 be renewed. The High Court also held that
respondent No. 5 is entitled to use the platform in front of Shop No.
27 till any alternative policy comes by way of amendment in the Act
or the Rules, pertaining to the issue of rights to use the platform. The
learned Single Judge also held that right to use the platform and to
have the licence to do the business in the market area both are distinct
and different and the two rights were not directly linked.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court the appellant preferred the letters patent appeals before the
Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned common judgment
and order the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the
said letters patent appeals and has confirmed the order passed by
the learned Single Judge holding that right to use the shop and/or
having a licence and right to use
the platform are not directly related.
The Division Bench of the High court also observed that respondent
No. 5 is using the platform since 1970 i.e., much prior to the appellant
getting the licence and therefore, being a senior licencee, he gets the
right to use the platform allotted to him i.e., in front of Shop No. 27.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court the original writ petitioner – licence holder and owner of
Shop No. 27 who is also claiming the right to use the platform in
front of Shop No. 27 has preferred the present appeals.
3. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the appellant(s) has vehemently submitted that the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have
materially erred in confirming the allotment of the auction platform
in question, in favour of original respondent No. 5.
3.1 It is submitted that the appellant herein was granted the
licence in the year 2007, however, so far as respondent No. 5 is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1049
concerned, he applied for a fresh licence/renewal in the year 2009
and he was issued a fresh licence in the year 2010 and therefore, as
per seniority the appellant herein was entitled to priority.
3.2 It is further submitted that even at the time of submitting
the application for fresh licence/renewal in the year 2009, respondent
No. 5 submitted an affidavit dated 20.08.2009 deposing that he will
not claim any right over the auction platform. That in fact the licence
was issued only after the said affidavit.
3.3 It is next submitted that the High Court has materially erred
in observing and holding that carrying on the business in the shop and
on the auction platform both are distinct and separate. That the right
to use a particular site in the platform is connected with the right to
use the particular corresponding shop in view of the clear policy of
the board i.e., “One Site One Shop”.
3.4 It is contended that the appellant herein is doing the business,
has the licence and he is allotted shop no. 27 and therefore, he is
entitled to the allotment of the auction platform adjacent to and/or in
front of shop No. 27.
3.5 It is further contended that so far as respondent No. 5 is
concerned, he is doing business in shop No. 12 therefore, not to permit
the appellant(s) to do business on the auction platform which is
adjacent to shop No. 27 and allotting auction platform to respondent
No. 5 who is doing business in shop no. 12, just adjacent to shop No.
27 is
unreasonable and arbitrary.
3.6 It is next contended that the appellant(s) herein approached
the learned Single Judge challenging the co- allotment of the site to
respondent No. 5. That in any case the appellant(s) do not succeed
in such challenge, they cannot be worse of compared to the position
which they were in prior to filing of the writ petition.
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Vatsal Joshi,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh Market
Committee. It is vehemently submitted that after the interim order
dated 05.08.2016 was passed by this Court, the representation made
by the appellant herein has been dealt with and considered by the
Market Committee and a detailed reasoned order has been passed
by the Market Committee rejecting the representation of the appellant.
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS v. UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1050
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
4.1 It is further submitted that the allotment of auction platform
is to be made as per the policy. That it is rightly observed and held by
the High Court that to do business in the shop and on the auction
platform are different and distinct. That as such there is no policy
and/or rule pointed out on behalf of the appellant that a licence holder
is entitled to carry on the business and/or allotment of the auction
platform just adjacent to and/or in front of shop occupied by him.
4.2 It is next submitted that as respondent No. 5 was found to
be doing business since 1970 and thereafter, he applied for renewal
of the licence in the year 2009; he has been allotted the platform in
front of shop No. 27.
4.3 It is vehemently submitted that the appellant and/or any
other licence holder doing business in the respective shop cannot as
a matter of right claim allotment of the auction platform at a particular
place.
4.4 It is contended that as such, existing sheds in the Market
Committee collapsed on 10.06.2007 and thereafter, sheds were
reconstructed in the year 2009. That thereafter, the Secretary
Agriculture, U.T. Chandigarh laid down the principles and guidelines
at the first instance, all those allottees, who were allotted sheds for
working prior to collapse of sheds on 10.06.2007 were entitled to be
allotted shed/space as they existed on the date when the shed
collapsed. That the appellant was issued the licence on
16.07.2007
whereas the sheds collapsed on 10.06.2007, therefore, the appellant
was not in possession of the shed earlier to the collapse on 10.06.2007
and therefore, his case is not covered under the aforesaid policy.
4.5 It is further contended that the action of the Market
Committee in allotting the sheds is absolutely in consonance with the
guidelines/policy laid down by the Secretary, Agriculture Department,
Chandigarh.
5. While opposing the present appeals, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has argued that as such
respondent No. 5 was carrying on business on the platform even at
the time of the collapse of shed on 10.06.2007 and was having a
valid licence since 1970. However, at the time of allotment of newly
constructed sheds, licence of the firm was not valid due to non-renewal
and the case for grant of licence was pending for consideration in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1051
the office of the Committee, and the same was finally granted in the
month of February, 2010. It is submitted that thereafter on constitution
of the Committee the allotment of the shed was made to respondent
No. 5, being a licencee of the Committee and possession holder of
the shed prior to the collapse of the shed. Making the above
submissions it is prayed that the present appeals be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned
judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the learned Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench of the High Court.
 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant is
claiming shed/auction platform which is just adjacent to and/or in
front of shop No. 27 and/or at any other place. However, the appellant
is unable to establish and/or show any specific rules and/or regulations
with respect to the allotment of the shed/auction platform and that
too, just adjacent and/or in front of shop in which a particular person
is carrying on the business. Therefore, in the absence of any specific
right in his favour, the appellant could not have prayed for the allotment
of shed/auction platform just adjacent to and/or in front of his shop
No. 27.
6.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even other
persons are allotted the shops/auction platforms at different places.
It is also required to be noted that number of persons doing business
is more than the availability of auction platforms.
6.3 At this stage, it is also required to be noted that as such
pursuant to orders passed by this Court on 06.05.2016 and 05.08.2016,
petitioner – appellant made the representation. The orders are as
under: -
“Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel states that there are
certain other platforms which are available. If that is so,
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may consider whether one such
platform can be allotted to the petitioner or not.
Petitioner is entitled to make a representation in this behalf
within one week.
List the matter in the month of August, 2016.”
xxx
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS v. UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1052
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
“It is stated by Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, that platform No. 13 is available.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is
pending consideration and shall be decided within a period of
four weeks.
We hope that the respondents shall consider it favourably.
List the petitions after four weeks.”
Even the representation was permitted to be made to consider
on the statement made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that there are certain other platforms which are available
and to that, this Court observed that if that is so, respondent Nos. 2
to 4 may consider whether one such platform can be allotted to the
appellant or not. That thereafter, a representation was made by the
appellant which has been dealt with and rejected by the Committee
by a detailed order which is self- explanatory.
 6.4 In the representation/order, it is specifically mentioned that
earlier the shed collapsed on 10.06.2007 and thereafter, the shed
was reconstructed in the year 2009 and a policy decision was taken
pursuant to the directions issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, that
at the first instance, all those allottees, who were allotted sheds for
working prior to collapse of sheds on 10.06.2007 were entitled to be
allotted shed/space as they existed on the date when the shed
collapsed. Thereafter, the allotment has been made as per the
principles and guidelines
regarding allotment of auction platforms as
directed by the Secretary. The guidelines are as under: -
“1.
At the first instance, all those allottees, who were allotted
sheds for working prior to collapse of shed on 10.06.2007
will be allotted sheds/spaces as they exited as on the
date when the shed collapsed.
2.
In case after that, there are more spaces available, those
spaces shall be advertised and fresh applications from
the bonafide license holders as on the date of inviting
the applications or those licensees whose licenses are
due for renewal and are pending for renewal with the
competent authority as on date of calling applications
shall be called, after giving due notice of at least 20 days.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1053
Once that is done and in case legally bonafide
applications are more than the number of available space,
draw of lots will be held in the presence of Chairman,
Market Committee, Joint Secretary, Agricultural
Marketing Board and applicants who desire to be present.
Based on draw of lots further allotment of sites/working
spaces shall be made.
3.
These directives shall be followed till such time the
Government makes a new rule under the Act and gives
new guidelines.
Further keeping in view my finding in this case, I am of
the considered opinion that any allotment which has been
made to other than the erstwhile allottees who were
sitting and doing their business as on 10.06.2007 is not
just and valid and needs to be set aside.
I direct the Market Committee to issue notice for
cancellation of allotted site/shed to those allotees who
were not allottees as on 10.06.2007 and after giving them
due opportunity of being heard, may pass appropriate
orders keeping in view the principle which I have laid
down in this order.”
6.5 That thereafter, the allotments have been made in
accordance with the guidelines/principles laid down by the Secretary,
Agriculture. Under the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to
any preferential treatment and/or allotment dehors observance of
principles and guidelines issued by the Secretary regarding allotment
of the auction platforms. The appellant is to be treated at par and
equally with other persons doing business in the
market and on the
auction platform.
6.6 Even as rightly observed by the High Court, to do business
in the shop and to carry on business on the auction platform, are both
different and distinct. Merely because a person is having a licence
and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction
platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent
to his shop. No such rule and/or regulation and/or guideline supporting
such a claim has been brought to the notice of the High Court or
even this Court.
GURJIT SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS v. UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1054
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
6.7 Now so far as the allotment of the auction platform in
favour of respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is required to be noted
that according to the Market Committee and respondent No. 5,
respondent No. 5 has been holding the licence and doing business
since 1970, whereas the appellant herein got the licence on 16.07.2007.
It appears that at the relevant time when the allotment of the newly
constructed shed was made, the licence of respondent No.5 was not
renewed and/or not valid due to non-renewal and the case for grant
of licence was pending for consideration in the office of the
Committee, which was granted in the month of February, 2010.
Thereafter, the shed has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 5
being a licencee of the Market Committee and being in possession of
the shed prior to collapse of the shed. All these aspects in detail have
been considered by the Market Committee while deciding the
representation.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
in absence of any specific rule/regulation to the contrary and when
the allotment of the sheds is made as per the principles/guidelines of
the Secretary, Agriculture, reproduced hereinabove, and in absence
of any specific rule in favour of appellant(s), right to claim the
allotment just in front of his shop and/or adjacent to the same and
when the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 is made as per the
policy and guidelines, both the
learned Single Judge and Division
Bench of the High Court have rightly held against the appellant and
have rightly dismissed the writ petition(s) and appeal(s). We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeals lack merit and the same deserve to be dismissed and
are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeals dismissed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)