HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 4 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11766 of 2015 Petitioner :- Dainik Kisan Sabji Bajar Tamachpur Kshetra Panchayat Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Agriculture Govt.Of U.P.Lko.& Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,N.A.Siddiqui,N.C.Mehrotra Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has come up with a prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the order dated 28th May, 2007 contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition which is a letter of the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Bahraich to the City Magistrate indicating that renewal of licenses to vegetable vendors have been withheld by the Zila Panchayat, as Village Tamachpur is outside the municipal limits of the Nagar Palika, District Bahraich.
The issue of such licenses being granted or renewed in relation to village Tamachpur had come up before us in Writ Petition No. 9641 of 2015 where we passed the following order on 13.10.2015 in the case of Pyare Khan:-
"Heard Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Two reliefs have been prayed for by the petitioner, one that a mandamus be issued to the respondents to grant license to allow the petitioner to conduct sale of vegetables etc. at Village Tamachpur, Pargana Fakharpur, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich and the second relief is that mandamus be issued to the respondents to decide his representation dated 17.07.2015.
From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner was allegedly carrying the business of wholesale vegetables etc. at Village Tamachpur, Pargana Fakharpur, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich. This was objected by the Mandi Samiti on the ground that same requires a license.
Keeping in view the fact that the said village falls within a notified market area of the Mandi Samiti, in our considered opinion the petitioner will have to apply for a license. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that he has applied for a license but the same has not yet been considered.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the first relief cannot be granted. So far as the grant of license is concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application in terms of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 before the respondent no. 2 who shall consider the said request of the petitioner, if made, in accordance with rules and after payment of due fee in this regard and shall dispose of the same.
The writ petition is disposed of."
This writ petition has been filed by a Firm through its proprietor Mohd. Haneef making almost the same prayer with regard to a direction that the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bahraich may not interfere with their vending of vegetables in the area concerned and the Zila Panchayat Bahraich be directed to renew the license of the petitioner.
Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti submits that the Zila Panchayat will have no authority to issue any such licence, inasmuch as, the area in question falls within the notified area of the Principal Market Yard concerned under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
He has invited the attention of the Court to the notification dated 8th June, 2010 whereby Nyay Panchayat Tarapur Khurd has also been included within the Principal Market Yard of Bahraich. The aforesaid Nyay Panchayat Tarapur Khurd includes four revenue villages, particularly village Tamachpur and in such circumstances the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Having considered the aforesaid submissions raised, we find that the original notification was made of declaring the Principal Market Yard on 24th May, 1972. Vide notification dated 8th June, 2010 certain more villages including Village Tamachpur of Nyay Panchayat Tarapur Khurd have been acknowledged within the span of the Principal Market Yard. The said notification is extracted hereinunder:-
^^mRrj izns'k 'kklu d`f"k foi.ku ,oa d`f"k fons'k O;kikj vuqHkkx & 1 la[;k% [email protected]&1&2010&600¼337½@2009 y[kuÅ fnukad 08 twu] 2010 vf/klwpuk pwafd jkT; ljdkj yksdfgr esa ,slk djuk vko';d vkSj lehphu le>rh gS vr,o vc mRRj izns'k d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh vf/kfu;e] 1964 ¼m0iz0 vf/kfu;e la0&25] lu 1964½ dh /kkjk&7 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds [k.M ¼d½ ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky bl vf/klwpuk ds xtV esa izdkf'kr gksus ds fnukad ls fuEufyf[kr {ks= dks ljdkjh vf/klwpuk la[;k&,l-,-,l-vks-&577&,¼jft0½@1396¼,½ y[kuÅ] fnukad 24 ebZ 1972 esa fofufnZ"V iz/kku e.Mh Lfky cgjkbZp ds {ks= esa lfEefyr djrs gSA iz/kku e.Mh LFky cgjkbp esa lfEefyr fd;k tk jgk {ks= ftyk cgjkbp ds fodkl [k.M fpRrkSjk dh U;k; iapk;r 1&dYihikjk] 2&Mhgk] 3&elhgkckn] 4&lksgjok ,oa fodkl [k.M rstokiqj dh rhu U;k; iapk;r 1&gqlSuiqj] 2&rkjkiqj [kqnZ] 3&usoknk dh lhek ds Hkhrj dk lEiw.kZ {ks=A vkKk ls] jkts'k dqekj flag lfpo i`"Bkadu la[;k 476 ¼1½@80&1&2010 rnfnukad izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr%& 1& la;qDr funs'kd] jktdh; eqnzk.ky; ,s'kckx] y[kuÅ dks mijksDr vf/klwpuk dh vaxszth izfr lfgr fnukad 8&6&2010 ds vlk/kkj.k xtV ds fo/kk;h ifjf'k"V ds Hkkx&4 ds [k.M [k esa izdk'kukFkZA d`i;k vf/klwpuk dh 50 izfr;kW 'kklu dks Hkstus dk d"V djsaA 2& funs'kd jkT; d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh ifj"kn m0iz0 y[kuÅA 3& ftykf/kdkjh] cgjkbpA 4& lHkkifr] d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh lfefr] cgjkbp] ftyk cgjkbpA vkKk ls] ¼x;k izlkn dey½ mi lfpo^^ Consequently, in view of the aforesaid position that emerges, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted. It is open to the petitioner to apply before the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti for grant of licence in accordance with law and in case any such application if filed, the same shall be considered by the Samiti in accordance with the rules, and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon.
The writ petition is therefore consigned to records with the said observations.
Order Date :- 22.12.2015 sahu