Summary
The owner of a shop in the Chandigarh agricultural produce market, licensed in 2007 after evicting his tenant, claimed the auction platform in front of his shop on a 'one site one shop' basis; the Market Committee allotted that platform to the former tenant, a licensee doing business there since 1970 whose licence was renewed in 2010, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the allotment, holding that the right to a shop licence and the right to use a platform are distinct. The Supreme Court dismissed the owner's appeals: no rule or regulation entitles a licensee to the platform adjacent to his shop, platforms are fewer than traders, allotments were made under the Secretary's guidelines giving first priority to those occupying sheds before the 2007 collapse, the owner was licensed only after that date, and his representation for another platform was rejected by a reasoned order.
Issues
- Whether the holder of a licence and owner of a shop in a regulated market is entitled as of right to allotment of the auction platform in front of or adjacent to his shop, in preference to a senior licensee who occupied the platform before the sheds were rebuilt.
Provisions considered
- Allotment guidelines 1 to 3 (priority to pre-10.06.2007 allottees; draw of lots for the rest), Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981 and guidelines of the Secretary, Agriculture, U.T. Chandigarh for allotment of auction platformsAllotments after reconstruction of the sheds followed these guidelines; the appellant, licensed on 16.07.2007 after the collapse, was not an earlier allottee and must be treated at par with other traders, while the respondent had done business on the platform since 1970. (¶¶ 4.4, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7)
Held
- The appellant could point to no rule or regulation conferring a right to a platform adjacent to his shop; other traders are allotted platforms at different places and the number of traders exceeds the platforms available. Doing business in a shop and on an auction platform are different and distinct, and a shop licence does not carry a right to the platform in front of it. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2, 6.6)
- On this Court's interim orders the appellant's representation for another available platform was considered and rejected by the Market Committee by a detailed self-explanatory order applying the Secretary's guidelines; the allotment to the respondent, a licensee in possession before the collapse whose licence renewal was pending and granted in February 2010, accords with the policy and the High Court rightly held against the appellant. (¶¶ 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 7)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs; judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 23.10.2013 in LPA Nos. 2130 and 2131 of 2011 and order dated 17.12.2013 affirmed.