Sudha Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14733 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR


               D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.187/2022

Sudha Joshi, age about 51 years, W/o Shri Balmukund Joshi,
Proprietor Subham Kapil Enterprises (S.K. Enterprises) R/o Krishi
Upaj Mandi, Bhilwara (Raj.)
                                                     ---Appellant

                                   Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through The Director, Agricultural
Marketing Department Jaipur (Raj.)
2.    Krishi Upaj Mandi "A" Shrani Bhilwara through Secretary,
Krishi Upaj Mandi, Bhilwara (Raj.)
                                                ---Respondents



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Usman Ghani
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi
                               Mr. Loon Karan Purohit



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                               JUDGMENT

15/12/2022 This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ

petitioner for assailing the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by

learned Single Bench whereby the writ petition filed by the

appellant-writ petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to

decide the matter pertaining to allotment of godown was

dismissed.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Secretary, Krishi

Upaj Mandi Samiti "A" Category, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to

as 'Mandi Samiti') issued an advertisement dated 13.01.2006 for

allotment of a godown having capacity of 1000 metric ton on in-

(2 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

situ basis (in the original position). In the advertisement dated

13.01.2006, it was further stated that allotment of godown shall

be made as per the rates fixed in accordance with the Allotment

Policy, 2005 for allotment of godowns, decided by the Government

of Rajasthan. The appellant-writ petitioner pursuant to the said

advertisement submitted an application dated 14.01.2006 seeking

allotment of godown and deposited security amount of ₹1,00,000

with the respondents. Since, the husband of the appellant-writ

petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk with

the Mandi Samiti, the Secretary, Mandi Samiti vide letter dated

20.03.2006 sought guidelines from Director, Agricultural Marketing

as to whether allotment in favour of the appellant could be made.

The Additional Director, Agricultural Marketing vide communication

dated 13.06.2006 sought explanation from Secretary, Mandi as to

with whose permission, advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was

issued for allotment of godown and security amount accepted

thereto, particularly when the reserve rates for the same had not

been finalised after coming into force of Allotment Policy, 2005.

The Secretary, Mandi Samiti thereupon vide letter dated

04.10.2006 clarified that permission for allotment of godown on in

situ basis had been granted by the Directorate of Agricultural

Marketing, vide letter dated 26.08.2006. Further inter alia, it was

stated that security amount for the godown was fixed by the

Mandi Samiti on its own, as per the provisions of General Finance

and Account Rules and the reserve price for allotment was to be

finalised after receiving guidelines from the Directorate,

Agricultural Marketing. It is evident from the record that

allotment proceedings pursuant to advertisement dated

(3 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

13.01.2006 could not be completed and therefore, Mandi Samiti

through registered post dated 28.07.2008 returned a cheque

dated 28.07.2008, bearing No.821252 of ₹1,00,000 to the

appellant-writ petitioner, deposited against security amount by

her. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, no such cheque was

received by her and since she was interested in completion of the

godown allotment process, a legal notice dated 08.07.2008 was

served upon Mandi Samiti requesting them to expedite the

process of allotment. However, the efforts made by the appellant

to accelerate the allotment process were in vain. Aggrieved by the

inaction of the respondents in completing the godown allotment

process initiated through advertisement dated 13.01.2006,

appellant-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before learned

Single Bench with the following prayers:-

"1. Writ petition may kindly be allowed and proper order/ writ/direction/mandamus may kindly be issued, and

2. Respondent may kindly be directed to decide the matter for the allotment of the Godown.

3. During the pendency of this petition respondents may kindly be directed to not allot the Godown to other person."

Learned Single Bench vide order dated 24.02.2022 dismissed

the writ petition holding that in the policy decision, the

respondents cannot be bound down to complete the allotment

process of godown unless the same suffers from arbitrariness or

discrimination. It was observed that the allotment process had not

culminated into finality even after a lapse of 10 years and thus no

case for interference was made out. The appellant-writ petitioner

has laid a challenge to the order dated 24.02.2022 in the present

intra court appeal.

(4 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

At this stage, it would be apposite to mention that during the

pendency of the writ petition before learned Single Bench, the

Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara on 17.02.2022 issued a fresh

advertisement inviting applications for the allotment of godown in

question as per the Allotment Policy, 2005. The appellant-writ

petitioner for the reasons best known to her, neither brought this

fact regarding issuance of advertisement dated 17.02.2022 to the

notice of learned Single Bench nor challenged the same

independently. However, the same has been placed in the instant

special appeal through an application under Order 41 Rule 27

C.P.C for taking additional document on record at appellate stage.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

advertisement dated 13.01.2006 inviting applications for allotment

of godown was issued by the respondents as per the Allotment

Policy, 2005. The appellant-writ petitioner being eligible and

desirous of getting the godown allotted, submitted an application

dated 14.01.2006 along with security amount to the tune of

₹1,00,000 with the Mandi Samiti. It was submitted that without

any valid justification, the application was kept pending which

compelled the appellant-writ petitioner to seek issuance of writ in

the nature of mandamus seeking direction upon the respondents

to complete the allotment process. Learned counsel submitted

that on one hand, allotment process for godown pursuant to

advertisement dated 13.01.2006 had not completed while on the

other hand, the earnest money deposited by the appellant had

been retained by the respondents depriving her from making use

of her hard earned money. Learned counsel further submitted that

an authority discharging public functions is expected to act as per

(5 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

the statutes and guidelines within a reasonable period however, in

the present case, respondent-authorities had not issued allotment

letter in favour of the appellant despite her fulfilling all the

conditions enumerated in the advertisement dated 13.01.2006

and Allotment Policy, 2005. Lastly, it was submitted that despite

repeated representations submitted by the appellant, no action

whatsoever was been taken by the respondents to decide the

pending application dated 14.01.2006 for allotment of godown. On

the contrary, by an advertisement dated 17.02.2022 fresh process

for allotment of godown has been initiated. Learned counsel drew

Court's attention towards the budget speech dated 23.02.2022

delivered by Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Rajasthan proposing that

all pending applications for land allotment in various Mandi

premises in the State of Rajasthan shall be allotted on reserve

prices. It was thus prayed that the order dated 24.02.2022 may

be reversed and the respondents may be directed to decide

application dated 14.01.2006 expeditiously in a non-discriminatory

manner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

submitted that Mandi Samitis have been established under the

provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Produce Act, 1961.

It was urged that the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 for

allotment of godown at Mandi Samiti was issued by the Secretary,

Mandi Samiti, without sanction of the State Government, as

required by provisions of the Act of 1961 and therefore, whole

process so initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement

was void ab initio. Learned counsel further submitted that from

the perusal of communications dated 13.06.2006 and 04.10.2006,

(6 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

it is clear that the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued

prior to finalization of reserve price for allotment of godowns by

the State Government. The appellant was informed vide letter

dated 31.01.2007, issued by Secretary, Mandi Samiti that final

decision regarding allotment in question will be taken under the

directives of the State Government and therefore, the appellant

may either wait for final decision to be taken by the State

Government or she may withdraw the security money deposited

by her against the said allotment. Learned counsel submitted that

the process initiated by the Mandi Samiti for allotment of godown

was not approved by the State Government as a result whereof, a

cheque No.821252 dated 28.07.2008 of ₹1,00,000 deposited

against security money was sent to the appellant, which was

returned undelivered. It was emphatically submitted that the

husband of the appellant Shri Bal Mukund Joshi is an employee of

the Mandi Samiti and therefore, it is difficult to believe that the

factum regarding return of security amount was not known to the

appellant. The intention of the applicant apparently was to keep

the application dated 14.01.2006 pending. Learned counsel

argued that mere submission of an application for allotment of

godown does not confer any right especially when the questioned

allotment process had been initiated in contravention of provisions

of law. Lastly, it was submitted that the factum regarding issue of

fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 for allotment of godown by

the Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara was deliberately concealed by the

appellant at the time when the matter was being finally heard by

the learned Single Bench. It was thus prayed that the instant

appeal may be dismissed.

(7 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material

available on record.

Section 21-A of the Act of 1961 is reproduced herein below

for the sake of ready reference:-

"21-A Disposal of movable or immovable property- The market committee may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, sell, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise transfer movable or immovable property vested in the market committee."

The Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961

empowers the State Government to classify market areas into

Super class, A class, B class, C class and D class market areas, on

the basis of the criteria, as may be prescribed from time to time

and establish a market committee for every such market area.

The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara has been classified as A

Class market area. The market committee established for Mandi

Samiti, Bhilwara as per Section 21-A has been vested with the

powers to sell, gift, mortage, lease or otherwise transfer any

movable or immovable property, with the previous sanction of

State Government.

Admittedly, the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued

by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara without approval and

previous sanction of the State Government. Thus, there was a

complete lack of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary, Mandi Samiti

in issuing the advertisement dated 13.01.2006. A bare reading of

the communication dated 13.06.2006 of the Additional Director,

Agricultural Marketing makes it evident that State Government

had objected to the issuance of the advertisement dated

13.01.2006 without permission of the State Government. In fact,

(8 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

objection was also raised on the count that without determination

of reserve price for allotment of land/godown in the market area,

the security amount had been accepted by the Mandi Samiti. We

have no doubt in our mind that in the cases where authority lacks

jurisdiction under a statute and yet exercises powers without

sanction of law, any order so passed through such illegal exercise

of power is a legal nullity.

We do not find any substance in the argument advanced on

behalf of the appellant that the application dated 14.01.2006

submitted by her for allotment of godown could not have been left

dormant, particularly when she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria

and had deposited security amount of ₹1,00,000. E converso, the

record of the case reveals that not only a cheque bearing

No.821252 dated 28.07.2008 to the tune of ₹1,00,000 was

returned to the appellant through registered AD but it was also

brought to the knowledge of the appellant vide reply dated

07.08.2008 to the legal notice dated 08.07.2008, served by the

appellant. This is indicative of the fact that the appellant did not

want the allotment process to culminate into finality though, the

process initiated under advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was put

to an end by the respondents.

As noticed hereinabove, the husband of the appellant-writ

petitioner Shri Balmukund Joshi was working on the post of LDC in

the respondent Mandi Samiti, therefore, the ignorance feigned by

the petitioner of the various developments which were taking

place in the matter pertaining to allotment of questioned godown

in the Mandi Samiti is absolutely unbelievable.

(9 of 9) [SAW-187-2022]

Even otherwise, mere submission of application for allotment

of godown does not confer any right upon the applicant to seek

allotment. The allotment of godown in question has to be made as

per the statutory rules and in conformity with the policy framed in

this regard by the State Government which cannot be interferred

with unless the same suffers from vice of mala fide and

arbitrariness.

At this stage, we are constrained to observe that the

appellant has abused the process of law by not bringing it to the

knowledge of learned Single Bench at the time of final hearing of

the matter that a fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 inviting

applications for allotment of godown in question had been issued

by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara. Since, a fresh

advertisement had already been issued, it was a solemn obligation

of the appellant to candidly and correctly bring this

material/important fact having bearing on the adjudication of the

issue to the knowledge of learned Single Bench.

In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgment does not

warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the

appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such.

No order as to costs.

                                   (KULDEEP MATHUR),J                                       (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    88-Ravi Khandelwal









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)