M/S Ranjeet, Fruit & Vegetables ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 7006 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 20.06.2013
 
Delivered on 19.11.2013
 

 

 
In Chamber
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33873 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Ranjeet, Fruit & Vegetables Company And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,A.N. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satish Mandhyan 
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Sunita Agarwal, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. The writ petition is directed against allotment list dated 31.05.2013 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) issued by respondent no.4, whereby the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the "DM, GBN") has approved and sanctioned allotment of shops in notified Mandi Area to dealers, named therein. The aforesaid dealers are directed to deposit half of premium money and one year's advance usual charge, and, thereafter get registered executed agreement and take possession of allotted shops. It is alleged that in a very arbitrary and illegal manner, Secretary, Noida and certain other officials of Mandi Parishad, proceeded on their own to submit a select list of 133 dealers for allotment of shops in Mandi area, Gautam Budh Nagar, vide their minutes of selection dated 23rd January 2013. The aforesaid minutes are said to have been signed by 6 officials, of whom, except Deputy Collector, Dadri, all are the officials of Mandi Samiti, working on different posts. The lone outsider officer. Deputy Collector, Dadri, before signing minutes, made an endorsement, as under:

"I was asked to maintain law and order only. I did only that. Beyond this, I am not concerned with anything else."

2. A large number of complaints were made to DM, GBN about wide scale illegalities and irregularities committed in the aforesaid selection and recommendation. To enquire about that, a committee was constituted by District Magistrate, consisting of:

(1) Sri Pushpraj Singh, I/c City Magistrate, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

(2) Ms. Anju Lata, Deputy Collector/President, Mandi Samiti, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar

(3) Sri Rajesh Kumar, Deputy Collector, Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar

(4) Sri Bhagwan Singh, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Gautam Budh Nagar

3. The inquiry committee submitted report dated 06.04.2013 confirming large scale irregularities and acts of favouritism and nepotism etc. on the part of recommendatory body. The Inquiry Committee also suggested that entire auction is not worth approval and sanction, should be cancelled. Thereafter a fresh auction should be held, so that without any favour etc., in an impartial way, fresh proceedings may be held.

4. When the matter was under consideration, pursuant to inquiry committee's report dated 06.04.2013, certain persons, who claimed to be successful bidders in the auction held on 19.01.2013, (86 in numbers), came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 31045 of 2013, without disclosing the facts that against aforesaid auction, serious complaints were made which were enquired into and a report has been submitted by inquiry committee, which is pending consideration. Those petitioners made following prayer:

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar to issue allotment letters to the petitioners with regard to the shops allotted to them in the auction proceedings held on 19.01.2013 and to deliver possession of the shops;

ii) issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case' AND

iii) To award cost of the petition to the petitioners."

5. In absence of any pleadings about complaint and inquiry held, this Court had no occasion to look into the consequences thereof. Moreover, learned counsel appearing for Mandi Samiti also did not inform about such complaints and inquiry and only made a statement that necessary proposal is pending before District Magistrate, who is seized of the matter. It is in these obvious facts and circumstances, this Court passed following order on 29.05.2013:

"Raising a short controversy, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioners who are 86 in numbers submits that shops have been allotted to them by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti but the allotment letters are not forthcoming

Shri B.D. Madhyan, learned senior counsel for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti submits that so far as Mandi Samiti is concerned, necessary proposal has been sent to the District Magistrate, who is seized of the matter.

List in the second week of July, 2013.

In the meantime, the District Magistrate shall take an appropriate decision on the proposal to issue allotment letters to the petitioners and file the affidavit on or before the next date of listing."

6. Another Writ Petition No. 32665 of 2013 was filed by these very four petitioners raising grievance that respondents are keeping silence over the inquiry report dated 06.04.2013 and no decision has been taken thereon. They sought following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate action on the enquiry report dated 06.04.2013.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the respondent No. 3 to register criminal case under the Prevention and Corruption Act against the guilty officials/authority.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."

7. This writ petition came up before this Court on 31.05.2013, and when apprised of the fact that just two days back, an order was passed on 29.05.2013 in Writ Petition No. 31045 of 2013, this Court passed following order with further clarification in respect to its earlier order dated 29.05.2013:

"Connect with the Writ-C No.31045 of 2013.

We have been informed by Sri B.D. Mandhyan that in the aforesaid writ petition, we have required the District Magistrate to pass an appropriate order for allotment of the shops.

The present writ petition has been filed by a set of other traders pointing out the irregularities committed in the auction process for allotment of shops.

By way of clarification, it is added that the District Magistrate shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on the basis of the material before him uninfluenced by any order passed by us in the aforesaid writ petition No.31045 of 2013."

8. The respondents, however, allegedly published allotment list on 31.05.2013 itself stating that the auction was approved and accepted by District Magistrate. It is this list which is impugned in this writ petition, as Annexure-5, which has been published by Secretary, Mandi Parishad directing allottees to deposit half of the premium amount accepted and one year user charge in advance so as to ensure possession of allotted shop and also pay requisite stamp duty for execution of registered agreement.

9. When this matter was taken up on 18.06.2013, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mandi Parishad, stated that District Magistrate, however, accepting inquiry report has cancelled allotment list, whereafter he was directed to produce entire record before this Court.

10. Besides producing original record, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, i.e., Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Noida (hereinafter referred to as the "KUMS").

11. It is said that in the matter of allotment of shops in question several writ petitions were filed, i.e., Writ Petitions No. 46958 of 2004, M/s Sengar Trading Co. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 39836 of 2010, M/s Vijay Madhav and Co. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 33461 of 2012, M/s Vijay Pal Saini and sons and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; 67297 of 2012, M/s Irfan Fruits and Vegetables Co. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others; and, 16634 of 2013, M/s Mallu Islam and Co. and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. It cannot be doubted that in none of the above writ petitions the alleged irregularities committed in auction dated 19.01.2013 was subject of dispute. In fact most cases are of earlier period. Thus, there was no occasion to plead facts of something which at that time did not exist.

12. It is also said that report dated 06.04.2013 submitted to the DM, GBN, was referred by him to Director, Mandi Parishad for his guidance. The Director thereafter appointed another committee to consider the aforesaid report who submitted report dated 12.04.2013 which was forwarded to DM, GBN, on 18.04.2013. However, the DM, GBN still being dissatisfied, returned papers to Mandi Parishad, whereupon a fresh report was prepared and returned to DM, GBN, again. Thereafter (DM, GBN) he approved report for allotment of 96 shops. No order was passed in respect to other shops. All these averments have been made in para 12 of the counter affidavit, which has been sworn by Sri V.K. Sisodia, Secretary, KUMS, Noida. The relevant documents, (photocopy), in support of what he has said in para 12 of the counter affidavit, has been filed as Annexure-CA-2.

13. We have perused these documents and what discerned therefrom would not only interesting but would also demonstrate the audacity of respondent no. 4 in swearing a clearly false affidavit.

14. From page 24 of counter affidavit, Annexure-CA2, it appears that it is an extract from official file which has commenced after page No. 13 containing a note dated 30.01.2013. The auction was held on 19.01.2013. The auction committee submitted auction report which is from page no. 102 to 109 of the counter affidavit. There were six persons including one Chairman of this auction committee and they are, (1) Regional Director, Mandi Parishad, Meerut (Chairman); (2) Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Noida (Member); (3) Regional Accountant, Mandi Parishad, Meerut (Member); (4) Deputy Director (Construction), Mandi Parishad, Ghaziabad (Member); (5) Deputy Collector, Dadri (Member); and, Sabhapati, Mandi Samiti, Noida (Member). This report has been signed by three members on 21.01.2013. The signature of Regional Accountant does not bear any date. The Deputy Collector, Dadri has declined himself to be a party to the report, making endorsement, already quoted above.

15. The Regional Deputy Director, Mandi Parishad, Meerut, Chairman has signed this report on 23.01.2013. Obviously, this report could not have been submitted to DM, GBN before 23.01.2013 for his approval. In the meantime, it appears that DM, GBN received several complaints alleging large scale bungling in the aforesaid auction proceedings. Some of the complaints were:

^^¼ I ½ e.Mh dh nqdkusa dk;ns&dkuwu dks rkd ij j[kdj uks,Mk esa dk;Zjr O;kikfj;ksa dks NksM+rs gq, ,sls O;kikfj;ksa dks vkoafVr djus dh rS;kjh dh tk jgh gS] ftuds uks,Mk esa nqdku o dkjksckj gh ugha gSA muds QthZ irs fn[kkdj QthZ e.Mh 'kqYd tek djkdj ik=rk lwph esa loksZPp LFkku fn;k x;k gSA

¼ II ½ LFkkuh; O;kikfj;ksa dks o"kZ 2001 esa Fkksd djkjksckj djus ds fy, 104 ykbZlsUl nsdj 2-&20 gtkj :i;s tek djkdj vHkh rd u rks nqdku gh nh x;h gS vkSj u gh dk;Z djus dk Lfky fn;k x;k gS vkSj muds lkFk /kks[kk[kM+h o ukbUlkQh dh tk jgh gSA

¼ III ½ ftu ykbZlsfUl;ksa dks ik=rk lwph esa j[kk x;k gS] muds dk;ZLFky cgqeaftyk bekjrksa ds fjgk;'kh Q~ySVksa] edkuksa o dksBh&caxyksa esa fn[kk;s x;s gS ;k QthZ irs fBdkus fy[k fn;s x;s gSa] vkSj muds QthZ jsUV ,xzhesUV cukdj yxk fn;s x;s gSaA

¼ IV ½ lSDVj&88 Qst&2 uks,Mk fLFkr iz/kku e.Mh Lfky ljdkj }kjk Qwy e.Mh gsrq vf/klwfpr gSA bl e.Mh Lfky dks Qy o lCth e.Mh dh LFkkiuk gsrq m0iz0 d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh vf/kfu;e&1964 dh /kkjk 7 ¼2½ [k ds rgr vHkh rd vf/klwfpr ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj fcuk vf/klwpuk tkjh gq, gh Qwy e.Mh dh uohu nqdkus QthZ cuk;s x;s Qy o lCth ds ykbZlsfUl;ksa dks vkoaVu djus dh vfu;fer ;kstuk cukbZ gSA

¼ V ½ nqdku ua0 ch&1 vuqlwfpr tkfr ds O;fDr dks vkjf{kr nqdku gS] ftls Hkkj}kt V~sMlZ uked QeZ us fy;k gS] tcfd Hkkj}kt vuqlwfpr tkfr ds ugha gksrs gSaA

¼ VI ½ nqdku ua0 lh&38 y{eh ukjk;.k ,.M dEiuh ds fy, v'kksd pkSgku us yh gS rFkk nqdku ua0 lh&46 Hkh y{eh ukjk;.k ,.M dEiuh ds fy, v'kksd pkSgku us gh yh gSA ifr&iRuh nksuks dh ,d&,d nqdku gSA

¼ VII ½ nqdku ua0 ch&50 ubZ fnYyh lCth Hk.Mkj uked QeZ us yh gS] blds ekfyd d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh lfefr xkft;kckn ds lfpo v:.k dqekj crk, tkrs gSa] ftUgksaus viuh ekWa ds uke ij cSukeh QeZ cuk yh gSA

¼ VIII ½ nqdku ua0 ch&51] lh&13 vkSj lh&26 rhuksa nqdkus ,d gh uke dh QeZ [kkjh V~sMlZ us yh gSA

¼ IX ½ nqdku ua0 lh&2 'kckuk csxe dh vkM+ esa vCnqy lyke us QthZ cSukeh QeZ xksYMu QwV ,stsUlh ds uke ij yh gS rFkk mUgksaus ,d vksj nwljh nqdku lh&3 Qwyksa okyh e.Mh esa Hkh yh gSA ,d gh 'kckuk ds uke ij nks nqdkusa vks0ch0lh0 vkSj fodykax dksVs dh gSaA

¼ X ½ nqdku ua0 ch&47 vuqlwfpr tkfr ds dksVs dh nqdku csukeh rjhds ls ekS0 vlye us eS0 uhek V~sMlZ ds uke ij yh gSA

¼ XI ½ blds vfrfjDr Qwyksa dh e.Mh esa nqdku la0 lh&1 tks fd vuqlwfpr tkfr ds dksVs dh gS] bls eSllZ pkSgku QykolZ us fy;k gS] QeZ ds ekfyd egsUnz dqekj iq= >qUMk flag] 586 pwM+h okyku fnYyh dk tkfr izek.k i= Hkh ugha gSA

¼ XII ½ Qwyksa dh e.Mh dh nqdku ua0 lh&42 d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh lfefr uks,Mk ds orZeku lfpo Jh ohds0f'klksfn;k ds csVs vfHk"ksd f'klksfn;k ds uke ij vkoafVr gSA**

"(I) Going against the rules and procedure and leaving out the traders running their businesses at Noida, preparation is afoot to allot Mandi shops to those traders who are not having their shops and business at Noida. Mentioning their fake addresses and after getting their Mandi fees deposited, they have been placed on the top of eligibility list.

(II) After getting twenty thousand rupees each deposited from local traders and granting them 104 licenses for whole-sell business in 2001, neither shops have been allotted to them nor have they been given seal and thus fraud and injustice is being done to them.

(III) Residential flats of the multi-story buildings, houses and kothis - bungalows have been shown as business places of the licensees whose names are mentioned in eligibility list or fake addresses are mentioned and fake rent agreements are enclosed.

(IV) Pradhan Mandi situated at Sector 88, Phase-II, Noida is notified for Flower Mandi by the Government. This Mandi has not been notified under Section & (2) of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 for establishment of Fruit and Vegetable Mandi and, a irregular plan has been made for allotment of new shops to fake flower and vegetable licensee even without notification.

(V) Shop No. B-1, reserved for the person belonging to Scheduled Caste, is allotted to Bharadwaj Traders, though Bharadwaj community does not belong to Scheduled Caste.

(VI) Shop No. C-38 is allotted to Ashok Chauhan on behalf of Laxmi Narayan & Company and Shop No. C-46 is also allotted to Ashok Kumar on behalf of Laxmi Narayan & Company. One shop is allotted to husband and wife each.

(VII) Shop No. B-50 is allotted to New Delhi Sabzi Bhandar. Arun Kumar, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti is stated to be the proprietor of the firm who has got a benami firm registered in the name of his mother.

(VIII) Shop No. B-51, C-13 and C-26 are allotted to a firm with one and the same name viz. Khari Traders.

(IX) Shop No. C-2 is allotted to Abdul Salam in the name of Sabana Begum on behalf of fake benami firm Golden Fruit Agency and one shop C-3, situated at Phulon Wali Mandi is also allotted to them. Two shops are allotted to only one Shabana under O.B.C. category and Persons with disabilities category each.

(X) Shop No. B-47, the shop of Scheduled Caste quota, was obtained benami in the name of Messrs Neema Traders by Mohammed Aslam.

(XI) Besides it, the shop No. C-1 in Phoolon Ki Mandi, which belongs to Scheduled Caste quota, was obtained by Messrs Chauhan Flowers. There is no caste certificate of the owner of the firm Mahendra Kumar S/o- Jhunda Singh, 586, Choodi Walan, Delhi as well.

(XII) The shop No. C-42 of Phoolon Ki Mandi is allotted in the name of Abhishek Sisodia S/o- Shri V.K. Sisodia, Working Secretary of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Noida."

(English translation by the Court)

16. In fact the allegations that ineligible, fraudulent applicants are being allowed to participate in the auction, were made even before holding auction on 19.01.2013. Those complaints were made to Additional Director, Mandi Parishad (Lucknow) on 13.01.2013 who directed that before completion of auction proceedings, those complaints should be enquired into. Thereupon the City Magistrate, Greater Noida made a fact finding inquiry and submitted report dated 18.01.2013 in which he stated that eligibility list, finalised for permitting participation in the auction, included 28 firms/forms, whereof working addresses were found forged. The report said that Mandi Samiti employees while issuing licences, did not take precaution of making spot inspection of functional addresses of applicants. Therefore, it recommended, that, the auction proceedings should be held only after physical verification of working addresses of the applicants.

17. This report was forwarded by DM, GBN to Additional Director, Mandi Parishad (Lucknow) recommending for auction in the light of recommendations made in the fact finding inquiry report dated 18.01.2013 with a further request to postpone auction proceedings, fixed for 19.01.2013. The Additional Director, however, did not agree to defer auction date, i.e., 19.01.2013. He, instead, ordered that auction proceedings may be completed and thereafter obtain approval from DM, GBN. Obviously the Additional Director chose not to accept fact finding report dated 18.01.2013, and, instead, believing whatever has been done by officials of Mandi Samiti to be correct, directed for further proceedings. It is pursuant thereto the auction was held on 19.01.2013.

18. Again in respect to aforesaid auction, several complaints were made and for inquiry thereof the DM, GBN constituted a committee on 24.01.2013. The constitution of committee has already been mentioned above. This committee submitted report on 06.04.2013 which is on pages 96 to 101 of the counter affidavit. This report was placed before DM, GBN by Additional District Magistrate's order dated 06.04.2013. Thereupon the DM, GBN passed following order on 08.04.2013:

^^tkap fjiksVZ esa ftu ykbZlsUlksa dks fof/k 'kwU; fn[kk;k x;k gS] muds ckjs esa dksbZ /kkj.kk r; djus ls iwoZ eaMh ifj"kn ls bl fcUnq ij mudk er izkIr djuk mfpr gksxkA eaMh ifj"kn ;fn pkgs ds mi;qZDr iz'uxr ykbZlsUl/kkfj;ksa dh lquokbZ Hkh dj ldrh gksA

rRi'pkr i=koyh fnukad 15-04-13 rd izLrqr gksA**

"It would be proper to have opinion of Mandi Parishad on this point before drawing any presumption on the licences, which are shown as void of law in the inquiry report. Mandi Parishad, if wishes, can hear the licence holders in question.

Thereafter, the documents may be produced by 15.04.13"

(English translation by the Court)

19. The report was forwarded to Deputy Director, Mandi Parishad, Meerut vide Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)'s letter dated 09.04.2013 and the Deputy Director, Mandi Parishad, Meerut forwarded report to Director, Mandi Parishad vide letter dated 11.04.2013. When this letter was received by Director is not evident from record but what has been placed on record is the minutes of meeting dated 12.04.2013, of a committee, consisted of five officials:

^^1- vij funs'kd ¼iz'kklu½] e.Mh ifj"kn (Additional Director (Administration), Mandi Parishad)

2- Jh fnus'k pUnz] mi funs'kd ¼iz'[email protected]½] e.Mh ifj"kn] esjBA (Sri Dinesh Chandra, Deputy Director (Administration/ Distribution), Mandi Parishad, Meerut)

3- Jh c`ts'k dqekj] mi funs'kd ¼iz'[email protected]½] e.Mh ifj"kn] eqjknkcknA (Sri Brijesh Kumar, Deputy Director (Administration/ Distribution), Mandi Parishad, Moradabad.)

4- Mk fgeka'kq 'ks[kj f=ikBh] ziHkkjh vf/kdkjh foi.ku&3] e.Mh ifj"knA (Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi, Officer Incharge Distribution-3, Mandi Parishad.)

5- Jh Mh0ih0 f}osnh] ofj"B ys[kkf/kdkjh] e.Mh ifj"knA (Sri D.P. Dwivedi, Senior Accounts Officer, Mandi Parishad.)" (English translation by Court)

20. This report is from page 80 to 95 to the counter affidavit and has been signed by all the four members and Chairman of the Committee on the same day, i.e., 12.04.2013. The aforesaid committee recommended all 133 shops for approval by DM, GBN. This decision was forwarded to DM, GBN alongwith covering letter dated 18.04.2013 sent by Additional Director (Administration), Mandi Parishad, Lucknow. It was received by all DM, GBN on 23.04.2013 and he found that purpose for which the inquiry report dated 06.04.2013 sent to Director has not been appreciated, hence no decision at his level would be proper. He passed another order on 09.05.2013 and the relevant extract of this order, as is evident from page 25 and 26 of the counter affidavit, is as under:

^^csgrj gksxk] ;fn i=koyh funs'kd eaMh ifj"kn egksn; ds vuqJzo.kkFkZ @ voyksdukFkZ izLrqr gks ,oa funs'kd egksn; vFkok muds }kjk ukfer vf/kdkjh }kjk leLr rF;ksa ds HkyhHkkafr ijh{k.k i'pkr~] v/kksgLrk{kjh ds vkns'k fnukad [email protected] ,oa mi;qZDr rkfydk ds dze esa Li"V fLFkfr izLrqr gksA

fnukad 18-04-13 dh vk[;k ds layXud gLrk{kfjr ugha gS] vr% leLr vuqyXud @ layXud ;fn dksbZ gksa] rks og gLrk{kfjr gksaA

d`i;k mi;qZDr rF;ksa lfgr i=koyh ;Fkk'kh?kz izLrqr gks] rkfd i=koyh ij vafre fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk laHko gksA**

"It would be better, if documents are presented for the observation/viewing of Director, Mandi Parishad and after proper perusal of all facts by Director or the officer nominated by him, clear condition may be presented in the follow up of aforementioned table and undersigned's order dated 08.04.

The annexure of inquiry report dated 18.04.13 are not signed, hence all appendants/annexures, if any, may be signed.

Kindly document along with aforementioned facts should be produced, so that taking final decision may be possible on the document."

(English translation by the Court)

21. Again this matter was considered by the committee headed by Dr. Ram Vilas Yadav, Additional Director (Administration), Mandi Parishad, Lucknow in the meeting dated 13.05.2013. It reiterated its earlier report and again recommended for an early decision by DM, GBN for approval to auction proceedings. It was forwarded to the DM, GBN by Director, alongwith his letter dated 14.05.2013.

22. Alongwith aforesaid report dated 13.05.2013, and covering letter dated 14.05.2013, a copy of list of 133 applicants/licensees sent by Fax, by Secretary, KUMS, Noida, has been placed on record from page 51 to 59 to the counter affidavit. At the bottom of this list on page 59 there is an endorsement by Deputy Director (A & M) showing his signature dated 13.05.2013 as under:

"Photo Copy Attested rFkk uhykeh ds frfFk ij mDr ykbZlsUlh vkcaVu izfdz;k esa Hkkx ysus gsrq oS/k FksA

g0 &fnus'k

[email protected]@13

D.D. (A&M)"

"Photocopy attested and on the date of bidding the said licence holders were entitled to take part in the allotment process.

Sd/- (dinesh)

13.05.2013

(Engilish Translation by the Court)

23. This is a photocopy of the fax massage and the mention of fax number from which this list was faxed as also the date and time shows that on 13.05.2013 at 6.35 pm to 6.44 pm the aforesaid list was faxed from Noida number-01202460931. Now to whom it was faxed is not very clear but on page 51 there is an attestation of the photocopy by Deputy Director (A & M), Mandi Parishad, Meerut. In what context this fax report was furnished on 13.05.2013 is not very clear.

24. This report was forwarded to DM, GBN by Deputy Director, Mandi Parishad, Meerut alongwith his letter dated 17.05.2013 which is on page 45 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter the then DM, GBN, Sri Kumar Ravikant Singh, passed order dated 28.05.2013, copy whereof has been filed at pages 27 to 44 in which he approved 59 shops of 'B' category and 37 shops of 'C' category. He thus approved allotment/auction proceedings in respect to aforesaid shops.

25. The documents placed on record alongwith counter affidavit shows that a total number of 140 dealers participated in the auction proceeding. Their details are from pages 105 to 108 of the counter affidavit. (1) The Actual bidding was done by 133 licensees, out of which 49 were such who were granted licence on the same day on which the application was submitted. (2) Twenty two were such who were granted licence on a date before the date of submission of application forms. (3) Nineteen applicants were such who have left column no. 13 of their application forms blank, which require the details of employees engaged by them to work at Mandi area. (4) 104 applicants had given incomplete information in column no. 13. (5) Two application forms did not have any signature of the applicants. (6) 44 application forms did not have signature of accountant which would have verified payment of fee etc. (7) 83 applications though contain signatures of accountant but without any date. (8) Eight applications did not have the signature of Secretary. (9) 91 applications though are signed by Secretary but without date. (10) 109 allotted licensees were found to have no operating shop at the site, i.e., address given by them. (11) The list of eligible firms included 18 of such firms, the permanent address of their owners were not mentioned. (12) 75 firms were such which are owned by persons residing out of Uttar Pradesh, i.e., at Delhi, Haryana, Punjab and Jharkhand. (12) 19 shops were bid by only one candidate each. In respect to certain individual participants detail irregularities have also been noticed.

26. Sri Mandhyan, learned Senior Advocate has also produced before this Court the original record containing entire correspondence, inquiry report etc. and therefrom we prima facie find that the committee headed by Additional Director (Administration), Chaired by Dr. Ram Vilas Yadav, considered the reference made by DM GBN alongwith inquiry report. It considered entire matter on 12.04.2013 itself and a 16 pages report signed by all the members is there which apparently show an attempt to hush up all the irregularities and to protect Mandi officials. The reasons are very shallow and casual. It has brushed aside serious findings recorded by inquiry committee, after scrutiny of entire record, in a very superficial and clumsy manner. Some of the reasons to ignore inquiry committee's findings are either without any reason or gives self created and imaginary justifications.

27. Since any further observations on this aspect is likely to prejudice interest of individual dealers also, therefore, we do not find it appropriate to go ourselves in detail thereof and instead, in our view, it would be appropriate that an independent agency should enquire into the entire matter and submit a proper report.

28. Looking to the nature of irregularities pointed out by inquiry committee and other attending facts and circumstances, in our view, this matter should be enquired into by a Special Investigating Team, which shall be constituted by Chief Secretary, U.P. Government within 15 days from the date of communication of this order. He shall ensure that aforesaid team must have, besides other officials, a member of Higher Judicial Service and a senior Police Personnel from the cadre of Indian Police Service. The aforesaid team shall make investigation in the entire matter and submit report/progress report within three months from the date of its constitution. The aforesaid report shall be examined by Chief Secretary and with his own comments, he shall place it for this Court's perusal after three weeks thereafter.

29. We do not propose, at this stage, to interfere with the allotment in question, but provide, that allotment, if any, shall be subject to the result of this writ petition.

30. List this matter in February, 2014 with above reports etc. and the Writ Petitions No. 46958 of 2004, 39836 of 2010, 33461 of 2012, 67297 of 2012 and 16634 of 2013 shall also be listed alongwith this case.

Order Date :-19.11.2013

AK/Akn