M/S Laxminarayan Suresh Kumar ... vs M.P.State Agricultural Markesting ... on 26 March, 2026

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10416




                                                             1                             WP-10825-2026
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT GWALIOR
                                                       BEFORE
                                     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                 ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
                                               WRIT PETITION No. 10825 of 2026
                          M/S LAXMINARAYAN SURESH KUMAR (PATNERSHIP FIRM) AND
                              LICENSE HOLDER TRAING FIRM OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI
                                                  Versus
                          M.P.STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKESTING BOARD AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Amit Bansal - Advocate for the petitioner.
                                  Shri Shyam Prakash Jain - Advocate for the respondents/Mandi
                          Samiti.

                                                                 ORDER

The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"(i) That, a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned order/communication dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure-P/1) as also the further impugned communication dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure-P/4) issued by the respondent No. 2 Mandi Samiti.

(ii) That, the respondents in particular the respondents No. 2 to 4 may kindly be directed not to evict/disposess the petitioner firm from the shop-cum-godown in question (as

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10416

2 WP-10825-2026 described hereinabove) without following the due procedure contemplated under law especially the provisions contained in M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974.

(iii) Any other such orders or directions which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in order to meet the ends of justice, be also passed."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent Mandi Samiti, particularly in issuing the impugned communications directing the petitioner firm to vacate the shop-cum-godown and hand over vacant possession, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, as the said structure has been constructed by the petitioner firm at its own cost and expense on the plot allotted to it under a duly executed and registered lease deed dated 03.04.1995.

It is further submitted that the petitioner firm continues to remain in lawful possession and occupation of the said shop-cum-godown and the lease deed executed in its favour has neither been validly determined nor terminated in accordance with law, and therefore continues to subsist. In terms of the conditions of the said lease deed, the petitioner firm is also entitled to seek renewal of the lease for a further period of thirty years. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the respondent authorities to vacate the premises and deliver possession is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner's legal and contractual rights.

Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is further contended

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10416

3 WP-10825-2026 that even assuming, though not admitting, that the respondent Mandi Samiti considers the occupation of the petitioner firm to be unauthorized, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except by following the due process of law. The provisions of the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 are fully applicable to the premises in question, and any eviction can only be carried out strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. The law in this regard stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2317/2010 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others), wherein reliance has been placed on the Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) vs. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri and others, reported in 2008 (3) MPLJ 153.

In view of the above, the impugned communications are liable to be quashed and the respondents deserve to be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner firm except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents Mandi Samiti submits that the petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal, as the petitioner's lease expired on 30.07.2015 and no subsisting right remains in its favour. It is contended that after shifting of all Mandi activities to the new premises, the respondent is entitled to resume possession of the old premises in accordance with law and policy, and the petitioner cannot claim renewal as a matter of right.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was inducted into possession

pursuant to a duly executed lease deed and has constructed the shop-cum-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10416

4 WP-10825-2026 godown at its own cost. The record further reveals that the respondents, instead of resorting to the procedure prescribed under the relevant statutory framework, have sought to dispossess the petitioner by issuing administrative directions calling upon it to vacate the premises. Such a course of action is impermissible in law. Even assuming the case of the respondents that the lease period has expired or the occupation of the petitioner has become unauthorized, the respondents are under a legal obligation to follow the due process contemplated under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 before effecting eviction. The law in this regard stands fortified by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 2317/2010 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others) decided on 16.07.2018, wherein it has been held that eviction from Mandi premises can only be undertaken in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Adhiniyam of 1974.

This Court is also of the considered opinion that the impugned communications suffer from arbitrariness and are violative of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as they seek to deprive the petitioner of possession without adjudication by the competent authority under the statute. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that any proceedings, as contemplated under the Adhiniyam of 1974, were initiated or concluded prior to issuance of the impugned communications. In absence thereof, the action of the respondent Mandi Samiti is clearly unsustainable.

Consequently, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned communications dated 29.09.2025 and 15.12.2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10416

5 WP-10825-2026 issued by the respondent Mandi Samiti are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings on the application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1974 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and the Competent Authority shall thereafter decide the same on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a further period of two weeks .

It is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings strictly in accordance with law, and until such procedure is duly followed and an order is passed by the competent authority, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the premises in question.

The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

pwn*