Delhi High Court
Arif Fruits & Vegetable Company vs Agriculture Marketing Produce ... on 20 July, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
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
ORDER
% 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
