Delhi High Court
Mohd Suleman & Ors vs Delhi Agriculture Marketing ... on 11 April, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th April, 2012
+ LPA No. 517/2011
MOHD SULEMAN & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rohit Sharma and Ms. Shaifali,
Advocates
Versus
DELHI AGRICULTURE MARKETING
BOARD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvashi Malhotra for Mrs.
Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 17 th February, 2011 of
the learned Single Judge dismissing WP(C) No.757/2011 preferred by the
three appellants. The said writ petition was preferred seeking a direction to
the respondents Delhi Agriculture Marketing Board (DAMB) and
Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) to allot alternative
shops to the appellants in the Subzi Mandi, Okhla or Gazipur in lieu of their
shops in Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj. The learned Single Judge has noticed
that the appellants had earlier also filed WP(C) No.9894/2009 for the same
relief and which was withdrawn by them on 21 st December, 2009 after
apologizing for wrong and incorrect averments made in that writ petition.
Though it was the contention of the appellants that the earlier writ petition
was withdrawn for technical grounds, the learned Single Judge has in the
impugned order observed that the appellants having withdrawn the earlier
writ petition, even if on technical grounds, were not entitled to again
approach the Court. Nevertheless the learned Single Judge also considered
the merits of the claim of the appellants and found, that claims of the
appellants for alternative shops were rejected by the respondent DAMB for
the reason that the names of the appellants did not figure in the surveys
conducted in the years 1976 and 1985; the appellants never made a
representation claiming that their names had been wrongly left out in the
surveys and that the appellants despite opportunity had failed to produce
documents in support of their entitlement.
2. It was also the contention of the appellants before the learned Single
Judge that as per the note dated 22nd January, 2001, the appellants no. 2 and
3 had been found to be carrying their trade business in vegetables from shop
No. 3684/2, Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj and that their cases had not been
examined by DAMB and APMC. The learned Single Judge however found
that on a reading of the entire note it was borne out that the appellants were
in fact not found carrying any trade. It was further observed that though the
notings were of the year 2001-2003, the first writ petition was filed six years
thereafter in the year 2009 and the writ petition from which this appeal
arises, only in the year 2011. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
3. We may notice that though the present writ petition had come up first
before this Court on 31 st May, 2011 but is being adjourned from time to time
and no notice even thereof has been issued till now. However, the counsel
for the respondents appearing on advance notice has produced the original
files for our perusal.
4. We have examined the records including various documents annexed
by the appellants to their writ petition and to this appeal, in support of their
plea of having had a shop in the old Subzi Mandi, Darya Ganj and therefore
being entitled to a shop in the New Subzi Mandi. However, what we find is
firstly that it is not as if the case of the appellants has not been examined by
the respondent authorities. Rather the record shows that on representation
received through several quarters, the case of the appellants was examined
and it was always found that the name of the appellants did not figure in the
surveys conducted in this regard in the years 1976 and 1985 and that the
appellants had at that time not made any claim also. Once it is found that the
method devised while shifting the Mandi, for allotment of shops at the new
Mandi was of survey, this Court cannot interfere in the factual findings of
the name of the appellants having not figured in the survey and the
appellants thus being not entitled to any allocation. Similarly, the ground
taken by the respondent, of the appellants having not objected to the findings
of the said surveys and having not represented thereagainst for long is also
factual in nature and not interferable in exercise of powers under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
5. In our opinion the withdrawal by the appellants of the earlier writ
petition in the year 2009 was itself sufficient for not entertaining the
subsequent petition, after two years, claiming the same relief.
6. We therefore do not find any reason to entertain this appeal or to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
APRIL 11, 2012
'M'
