C.W.P. No.19707 of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.19707 of 2006
Date of decision:19.08.2009.
M/s Paramdeep Commission Agents and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. H.S.Riar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. R.S.Cheema, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate,
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. M.S.Kahlon, Advocate, and
Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.5 to 205.
*****
JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL).
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that action of
the respondent authorities, in making allotment of plots to the
selected/chosen few, ignoring right of the petitioners and other similarly
situated license holders, who were running their commission agent’s
shop at Bhagtanwala Mandi, District Amritsar, be set aside. It was
further prayed that auction of plots in New Grain Market at
Bhagtanwala Mandi, District Amritsar, conducted on 23/24.11.2006 be
quashed, being arbitrary, mala fide and in violation of Articles 14 and 19
(i)(g) of the Constitution of India.
It is case of the petitioners that they are doing the business
C.W.P. No.19707 of 2006 -2-
of Commission Agents and are trading in agriculture produce in
Bhagtanwala Mandi, District Amritsar. All the petitioners are license
holders, issued to them under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural
Produce Markets Act, 1961, by the Market Committee, Amritsar. Plots
in New Grain Market at Bhagtanwala Mandi, District Amritsar, which
were put to auction, were not reserved for old licencees, rather those
were to be allotted to the general public, as per norms.
It is an admitted fact that after the advertisement, plots
were auctioned on 23/24.11.2006 and, thereafter, on 14/15.12.2006. It
is primary grievance of the petitioners that the auction held on
23/24.11.2006 was not an open auction. In a very mala fide manner,
selected/chosen few persons were called inside the room, in batches,
and, thereafter, plots were allotted to them, as per convenience of the
authorities. Averments in this behalf have been made in paragraph
No.12 of the writ petition, which reads thus: –
“12. That to the utter surprise of the petitioners no auction
was held on 23.11.2006 and a secret process continued on
23.11.2006 by calling chosen few in small groups. The
respondent authorities may be directed to produce the
record relating to the allotments made on 23.11.2006 and
24.11.2006 as well. Most of the persons including the
petitioners who were present in the auction were not even
called inside and, thus, they could not get chance to bid for
any site. As per information obtained by the petitioners as
many as 110 plots have been shown to have been
auctioned/allotted on 23.11.2006. In these 110 allottees
there are only 50 old licencees. Rest are outsiders. Even
the authorities have shown to have made licences on
C.W.P. No.19707 of 2006 -3-23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006. Thus, there is no rational
criteria. The respondent authorities have again made a
complete go-by to the rules and regulations in the matter of
allotment/auction of the plots.”
In their written statement, respondent Nos.3 and 4, in
paragraph No.7 of the preliminary objections, have averred as under; –
“7. That the instant petitioners fully participated in the
auction conducted by respondents – Punjab Mandi Board.
In fact, prior to the filing of the instant writ petition, most of
the petitioners who were the successful bidders, and had
already purchased the plots in the auction have already
been issued letter of allotments qua their plots. The details
of the petitioners who have successfully purchased plots in
the auction conducted on 23.11.2006, i.e. prior to filing of
the instant writ petition is annexed as Annexure R-3, 4/4.”
In reply on merits of paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, it
was further stated as under: –
“12. That the contents of Para No.12 are wrong and denied.
The auction process was conducted in a free, fair and
transparent manner. Most of the petitioners participated in
the auction and have even purchased plots and have also
been issued Allotment Letters qua their plots, even prior to
filing of this Writ Petition. The averments being made are
factually incorrect to prejudice the minds of this Hon’ble
Court.”
On 26.11.2008, respondent Nos.3 and 4 took a specific
stand that auction was open and the proceedings were video-graphed,
on all the four occasions. Counsel for the respondents were directed to
C.W.P. No.19707 of 2006 -4-
produce, in Court, recorded version of the auction proceedings, as
stated by respondent Nos.3 and 4.
Today, in Court, Video Compact Disk (VCD), of the
recorded version of the auction conducted on 23/24.11.2006, has been
produced and it was displayed on a laptop. It appears that the auction
was conducted in a huge room, in which many officers and large
number of the participants, may be more than 100, were present.
It is contention of the petitioners that they were not allowed
to enter the room.
This contention has been specifically denied by the
respondents.
Such like disputed facts cannot be gone into by this Court
while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. From the facts available on file and after viewing
at the recorded version of the auction, this Court is of the opinion that
auction was conducted in an open manner and it was not in batches
and in a closed room, as projected by the petitioners. So far as the
price difference in the plots allotted is concerned, it is specifically noted
in the proceedings of auction that the plots, which fetched less value on
23.11.2006, are near to the garbage dump and are situated in the
periphery of the Grain Market. There is no allegation of mala fide,
against any of the official respondents, in making the allotment.
In view of above, no case is made out for interference.
Otherwise also, it has come on record that in the auction in dispute,
plots were also allotted in favour of many of the petitioners.
Dismissed.
August 19, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod * JUDGE