Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board Ordered to Consider Shop Allotment: Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Hakumat Rai, ruled on the issue of allotment of shops in Gazipur Mandi to traders displaced from other markets. The judgment addressed whether a commission agent, who had been waiting for years, was entitled to shop allotment and a Category ‘B’ license under the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1998.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Hakumat Rai, was a commission agent dealing in fruits and vegetables at Phool Mandi, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Following the de-notification of the market in 1998, traders were relocated to the Okhla market, and their licenses were not renewed. A draw of lots was conducted in 1987 to allot shops in Okhla, but the respondent was not successful.

In subsequent years, the respondent made several representations requesting alternative accommodation in Keshopur Mandi, Tilak Nagar, or other locations. Despite a recommendation from the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in 1999, no shop was allotted to him. After repeated appeals, he sought allotment in Gazipur market but was denied.

Arguments of the Petitioner (Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board)

The petitioner, Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board, contended that:

• Shops in Gazipur market were reserved for traders displaced from Shahdara Mandi, and the respondent did not fall into this category.
• A Category ‘B’ license could only be granted to traders owning a shop in the APMC market area.
• As per the notification dated September 2, 2014, fruits and vegetable traders could continue operating in their existing locations, and no license was required beyond notified markets.
• Since more traders were eligible than the number of available shops, allotments were made through a fair process.

Arguments of the Respondent (Hakumat Rai)

The respondent argued:

• He had been a legitimate trader at Darya Ganj for decades and was entitled to alternative accommodation.
• Despite multiple recommendations and approvals from APMC, the Board had failed to provide him a shop.
• He was willing to pay 10% above the highest auction bid for an available shop in Gazipur market.
• The Board’s policy was unfair and created confusion by allowing some traders to relocate while denying others.

High Court’s Judgment

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Hakumat Rai, stating that he had waited since 1985 for a shop and was entitled to one in Gazipur market. The Court held:

• The Board had no clear policy preventing his allotment.
• Documents showed that APMC had approved his case, but the Board failed to act.
• The respondent should not be made to wait indefinitely and was entitled to relief.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Board to allot a shop to him and issue a Category ‘B’ license.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel, modified the High Court’s order. The key findings were:

• The respondent had no absolute legal right to a shop in Gazipur Mandi.
• Shops in Gazipur were designated for traders displaced from Shahdara, and the respondent did not belong to this category.
• However, given that his claim had been pending for a long time, he should be considered along with other eligible applicants.
• If a surplus shop was available, his case should be reviewed within six months.

Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court made several crucial observations:

1. No Automatic Right to Shop Allotment:

“Accommodation in a notified market area depends on the availability of shops. The respondent had no vested right to demand a shop at Gazipur.”

2. Consideration Along with Eligible Applicants:

“While there is no legal right for the respondent, fairness requires that he be considered with other eligible applicants, subject to availability of surplus shops.”

3. Balancing Policy and Fairness:

“Since his claim has been under consideration for long, an equitable approach requires that his case be examined along with others.”

Impact of the Judgment

1. Clarifying Shop Allotment Policies

The ruling confirms that shop allotments in APMC markets are subject to policy restrictions and are not automatic rights.

2. Ensuring Fair Consideration

While denying an absolute right to allotment, the Court ensured that the respondent’s long-standing claim would be fairly considered.

3. Strengthening Legal Framework for Market Allotments

The decision reinforces the importance of clear and consistent policies for allotting shops in agricultural markets.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board vs. Hakumat Rai strikes a balance between policy compliance and fairness. While it denied an automatic right to a shop in Gazipur market, it ensured that the respondent’s case would be reviewed if a surplus shop became available. The judgment sets a precedent for handling similar cases where traders seek alternative accommodation due to market relocations.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Delhi Agricultural M vs Hakumat Rai Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-08-2016-1741878544139.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Gopala Gowda
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category