Mohd Saleem And Co vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 4738 Del

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

5

+                  W.P.(C) 211/2010 & CM APPL 443/2010



    MOHD SALEEM AND CO                       ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Mohd. Ikram, Advocate


                             versus


    DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD
    AND ANR                                     ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta with Mr. Harpreet Singh,
                 Advocate for R-3
                 Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for Ms. Avnish
                 Ahlawat, Advocate for R-1 & 2.


    CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                             ORDER

% 07.10.2010

1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22nd January 2009 passed by

the Appellate Committee of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee

('APMC') rejecting his appeal against the suspension of his licence. The

Petitioner also challenges an order dated 29th July 2009 passed by the APMC

stating that no second appeal would lie against the decision dated 22 nd January

2009.

2. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The dispute is about the ownership of a shop No. C-629, New Subzi Mandi,

Azadpur, New Delhi. The Petitioner claims to have purchased it from one

Smt. Sheela Devi on 26th October 1995. Smt. Sheela Devi is supposed to have

been gifted the shop by its original owner Shri Ajudhya Prashad on 10th

August 1977. On the basis of the title information claimed by the Petitioner,

the APMC granted him 'A' and 'B' category licence for carrying on the

business of a fruit merchant.

4. In 2001, the Respondent No. 3 Shri Harish Kumar Mangal, the grandson of

late Shri Ajudhya Prashad claimed to be the owner of the shop. This led to a

civil suit, CS (OS) 655 of 2003 being filed in this Court by Shri Mangal

against the Petitioner for a declaration, injunction and possession. Issues were

framed in the said suit on 14th December 2005. One issue was whether in fact

the shop was transferred to the Petitioner for valuable consideration by Smt.

Sheela Devi, her sons and daughters. Another was whether Shri Ajudhya

Prashad in fact gifted the shop to Smt. Sheela Devi and put her in possession

thereof.

5. As far as the Respondent No. 3 is concerned, he claimed valid title to the

shop under a Will executed by Shri Ajudhya Prashad. He got mutation of the

shop in his favour in the records of the Delhi Development Authority

('DDA'). Subsequently, a conveyance deed was also executed in his favour

granting him freehold rights.

6. Before the APMC, the position was that the Petitioner could not produce

any original title deeds in respect of the shop in question whereas Respondent

No. 3 could demonstrate that in the records of the APMC the shop has been

shown in his name and that it had been mutated in his name in the DDA's

records. Shri Mangal also produced original records relating to the allotment

of the shop in the name of Shri Darshan Lal, his father, and therefore, the

Respondent No.3. Despite various notices, the Petitioner could not produce

any documents of ownership. In the circumstances, APMC by the impugned

order dated 22nd January 2009 confirmed the suspension of the Petitioner's

licence.

7. This Court is unable to find any illegality in the impugned orders of the

APMC. The question whether the Petitioner had acquired the valid title to the

shop in question has been framed in CS (OS) 655 of 2003 and will be decided

in those proceedings. The APMC was justified in demanding the Petitioner to

produce the necessary documentation to prove his title. The claim of the

Respondent No. 3 on the basis of the documents produced by him was found

to be stronger. In the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to hold

that APMC acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in deciding to suspend the

Petitioner's licence.

8. The decision dated 29th July 2009 of the APMC rejecting the second appeal

of the Petitioner is also neither arbitrary nor illegal.

9. For all the aforementioned reasons this Court does not find any merit in this

petition and it is dismissed as such. The pending application also stands

dismissed. The interim order dated 14th January 2010 stands vacated.

S. MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 07, 2010 rk