Supreme Court Upholds Market Committee’s Decision on Shop and Platform Allotment in Chandigarh

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., affirming the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the allotment of an auction platform in an agricultural market. The ruling clarifies the relationship between shop ownership and platform allotment, reaffirming that possessing a shop does not automatically entitle one to the adjacent auction platform.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh, where the appellant, Gurjit Singh, owned Shop No. 27 and sought exclusive rights over the auction platform in front of his shop. However, the Market Committee had allotted the platform to the respondent, who had been conducting business in the market since 1970.

Key events leading to the litigation:

Gurjit Singh owned Shop No. 27, while Respondent No. 5 was a tenant in the same shop.
After an ejectment order, Respondent No. 5 moved to Shop No. 12.
Respondent No. 5’s application to change his license address was rejected, and he was asked to apply for a fresh license.
In 2009, the Market Committee adopted a policy of “One Site, One Shop” for auction platform allotment.
Both parties sought control over the auction platform in front of Shop No. 27.
The Market Committee allotted the platform to Respondent No. 5, citing his seniority in the market.

Arguments by the Appellant (Gurjit Singh)

The appellant argued that as the owner of Shop No. 27, he had the right to the adjacent auction platform.
He obtained a license in 2007, whereas Respondent No. 5 applied for renewal in 2009 and received a license in 2010, making the appellant senior.
Respondent No. 5 had submitted an affidavit in 2009 stating that he would not claim any right over the auction platform.
The High Court erred in separating the right to use the shop from the right to use the auction platform.
The policy of “One Site, One Shop” supported his claim, as he had a shop and should be given the adjacent platform.

Arguments by the Respondent (Chandigarh Market Committee & Respondent No. 5)

The Market Committee’s policy does not grant an automatic right to the platform in front of one’s shop.
Respondent No. 5 had been operating in the market since 1970, much before the appellant.
The platform was allotted based on seniority and past usage.
The shed collapse in 2007 led to reallocation based on a structured policy.
The appellant failed to prove any specific rule granting him automatic rights over the auction platform.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, stating that:

There is no rule or regulation giving an automatic right to an auction platform for shop owners.
The Market Committee’s policy of reallocation was reasonable and was based on prior use and market dynamics.
Respondent No. 5 had been conducting business in the market long before the appellant.
The appellant’s claim lacked merit as he could not demonstrate any legal right to the platform.
The policy decisions of the Market Committee should not be interfered with unless found to be arbitrary.

The Court cited previous orders where the Committee was directed to consider available platforms for allotment. However, it noted that the representation made by the appellant had already been considered and rejected in a reasoned order.

The Court emphasized that “to do business in the shop and to carry on business on the auction platform are both different and distinct. Merely because a person has a license for a shop does not mean he is entitled to the auction platform adjacent to his shop.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s ruling that:

The appellant was not entitled to automatic allotment of the platform.
The Committee’s decision was in line with its policy and was not arbitrary.
Respondent No. 5’s allotment was justified based on seniority and long-term business presence.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling has several key implications for business owners and regulatory bodies:

Clarification on Market Rights: Possession of a shop does not inherently grant rights to the adjacent auction platform.
Regulatory Discretion: Market Committees have the authority to allocate resources based on policy and past usage.
Protection Against Arbitrary Claims: Prevents newer entrants from displacing long-term business operators.
Judicial Restraint in Policy Matters: Courts will not interfere in administrative decisions unless they are arbitrary or illegal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the autonomy of regulatory bodies in managing market infrastructure. By affirming that shop ownership and auction platform allotment are separate rights, the Court has ensured clarity in market policies and prevented undue interference in administrative decisions. This ruling sets an important precedent for future disputes related to market regulations and property rights.

Petitioner Name: Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs.
Respondent Name: Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
Place Of Incident: Chandigarh.
Judgment Date: 02-03-2023.

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

Download Judgment: gurjit-singh-(d)-thr-vs-union-territory,-cha-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-02-03-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by B.V. Nagarathna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category