Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963– ss.43, 52B – Government of Maharashtra decided to shift the wholesale fruit and vegetable market situated in Crawford Market to Vashi, Navi Mumbai to reduce the congestion – Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMCrespondent no.5) constructed two types of galas/shops, small galas and big galas – Committee appointed to suggest the norms to allot the galas/shops– Dispute pertains to the allotment of large gala/shop no.F-158 in lottery conducted by APMC– Appellant selected in the lottery for allotment of the said gala – Decision to conduct lottery challenged by respondent no.1 before respondent no.6 – Allotment by lottery to the appellant set aside – Order of respondent no.6 set aside and the decision of APMC drawing the lottery and allotting the said gala to the appellant was confirmed – Respondent No.2 filed writ petition – Allowed by High Court while directing APMC to allot the said gala in his favour – On appeal, held: As per the norms, no trader who has not paid the booking amount can get large gala or part thereof or more than one small gala – Respondent no.2 himself neither made the application before the cut-off date nor paid the booking amount – Amount paid by father of respondent no.2 was sought to be transferred to respondent no.2 – Transfer of amount by a person who booked the gala to another person is not permissible as per the norms fixed by the Committee – Respondent No.2 cannot claim allotment of Gala No.F-158 dehors the norms fixed by the Committee which were directed to be strictly followed by the High Court – Neither respondent no.1 nor respondent no.2 are eligible to claim allotment of large gala – Appellant having paid the market fee of Rs.9844.10 in the time frame of 1985-86 to 1994-95 which is less by Rs.155.90 to the required norm of Rs.10,000/-, falls under the category of “marginally falls short of the norms” and is entitled to make claim for the large gala – Findings of the High Court that one ‘GS’, who was not considered eligible to participate in the lottery, is not eligible to claim large gala set aside – Directions issued – Constitution of India – Art.14. Constitution of India – Art.14 – Enforcement of, in negative manner – Held: Not permissible – If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individual or wrong order has been passed by a forum, the same illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination or hardship.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Claim of respondent No.2- Respondent No.2 himself did not make any application for booking of any gala nor did he pay any amount for booking the gala. As per the norms suggested by Daud Committee, there was no scope of transfer of booking of gala and the booking amount from one person to another. In the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the right of respondent No.2 to get large gala has been crystallised by the order dated 24.09.2002 of Director of Agricultural Marketing and when the large Gala No.F-158 became available, APMC ought to have allotted the same to respondent No.2. As per the norms, no trader who has not paid the booking amount can get a large gala or part thereof or more than one small gala. Transfer of amount by a person who booked the gala to another person is not permissible as per the norms fixed by Daud Committee. Merely because, in other cases, gala booked in the name of one person is transferred in the name of another person, it cannot be the reason to adopt the same irregularity in the case of the second respondent also. If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individual or wrong order has been passed by a forum, the same illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination or hardship. Merely because, in few other cases, gala booked in the name of one person was transferred in the name of other persons in deviation from the norms fixed by Daud Committee, the Director, Marketing was not right in holding that the second respondent is entitled for allotment of large gala by transfer of booking of large gala from his father-Farhatullah Haji Barkatullah to his name. Father of respondent No.2 though paid the booking amount of Rs.1,32,000/-, he has not paid the requisite cess amount to be eligible for the third large gala. Where report of the Daud Committee specifically fixed the norms for the traders who have paid the booking amount and traders who have not paid the booking amount distinctly, the norms cannot be compromised or diluted by allowing the traders to get the booking amount of one trader be transferred to another thereby, enabling him to claim allotment of gala which he otherwise, would not have entitled to. Respondent No.2 cannot make a claim for allotment of Gala No.F-158 dehors the norms fixed by Daud Committee or otherwise, it would amount to diluting the norms fixed by Daud Committee which has been directed to be strictly followed by the High Court vide its order dated 07.05.1999 in W.P. No.2556 of 1999. The order dated 24.09.2002 passed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing is contrary to the norms fixed by Daud Committee. The order of the High Court holding that respondent No.2 is entitled to large gala cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside qua respondent No.2. [Paras 23, 26, 27-29, 32] [196-H; 197-A, E; 198-G; 199-C-H; 200-A-D; 201-E-F]
1.2 Claim of Appellant– During the period between 198586 to 1994-95, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.9844.10 towards cess/market fee and Rs.34,000/- towards booking a gala. The cess/market fee paid by the appellant was less by Rs.155.90 to the required norm of Rs.10,000/-. The market fee of Rs.9844.10 paid by the appellant was in the time frame of 1985-86 to 1994-95 and thus the appellant had not fulfilled the norms as per the Daud Committee report and thus the appellant is falling under the category of “marginally falls short of the norms.” The appellant placed reliance on the order of the High Court dated 07.05.1999 passed by the High Court in W.P. No.2556 of 1999 whereby the Division Bench has directed APMC to make allotment strictly by adhering to the norms laid down by the learned Commissioner. In WP No.2556/1999, the High Court further directed that if any gala remains vacant after allotment in accordance with the norms, it will be open to APMC to allot to those who “marginally falls short of the norms” that have been laid down. The appellant having paid the market fee of Rs.9844.10 in the time frame of 1985-86 to 1994-95 which is less by Rs.155.90 falls under the category of “marginally falls short of the norms” and is entitled to make a claim for the large gala. Without considering the rival contentions of the parties, the High Court was not right in holding that respondent No.2 alone was entitled for the allotment of large Gala No.F-158. [Paras 33, 34] [202-C-G]
1.3 Claim of ‘GSS’: ‘GSS’ was allotted a small Gala No.M748 in 1999. The amount of Rs.3,000/- paid by him to the Traders Association transferred to APMC in 2003, be it for lease premium or booking amount, the fact remains that he had paid only Rs.32,725/- before the cut-off date for taking the gala. Though, he was allotted small gala, the same can be taken into account for holding that he falls within the category of “marginally falls short of the norms” and is entitled to claim large gala. The findings of the High Court that he is not eligible to claim large gala is not sustainable and the is set aside. [Paras 35, 40] [202-G; 205-F-G]
1.4 M/s ‘RVD’: M/s ‘RVD is a registered partnership firm consisting of two partners. Both the partners obtained licences in their individual capacities. There are no norms suggested by Daud Committee making a partnership firm separately eligible for allotment of a Gala on the basis of the licence issued in the name of the individual partner, the amount paid by said individual partner towards booking of the Gala, payment of cess made by such individual partner, etc. In the absence of specific norms for the partnership firms, the norms framed for individual traders are applicable for the partnership firms. When the firm was registered in the year 2014 and it has not complied with any of the norms fixed by Daud Committee, the firm cannot seek for the allotment of any gala, much less a large gala. Considering the submissions of both the parties, in the impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that the partnership firm consisting of ‘RVD’ and ‘GVL’ is not separately entitled for allotment of any separate Gala. The partnership firm was registered only in the year 2014 and the firm was neither in existence nor carried on any business prior to cut off date. The High Court rightly rejected the contention that the registration would relate back to the date of execution of the partnership deed in the year 1987. The High Court rightly rejected the plea that the firm was eligible to apply for allotment of large Gala No.F-158. [Paras 41, 47 and 48] [206-B; 208-B-D; 209-A-C]
1.5 In view of the concurrent finding of Director of Agricultural Marketing dated 04.06.2014 and the findings of the High Court in the impugned judgment that M/s RVD is not eligible to claim large gala, nothing survives for consideration in W.P.No.234 of 2004 pending before the High Court of Bombay. In the light of affirming the view taken by the High Court that the firm M/s RVD is not eligible to claim allotment of large gala, the High Court shall dispose of the said writ petition W.P.No.234 of 2004 by passing appropriate orders. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are not eligible to claim allotment of large gala and the judgment of the High Court is liable to be set aside. The appellants and ‘GS’ (who are marginally short of the norms) are eligible to claim allotment of large gala along with others. [Paras 49-51] [209-E-H]
1.6 Since there is huge competition for the large gala, instead of adopting the lottery method, after fixing the market value in order to fetch more revenue for APMC, offers should be invited in sealed covers. In order to attract better offers, it is appropriate that appellant should vacate the large Gala No.F-158 at the earliest. The counsel appearing for APMC has stated that the small Gala No.M-821 earlier allotted to the appellant is still vacant. APMC shall forthwith pass an order for re-allotting the said small sized Gala No.M-821 to the appellant and the appellant shall vacate the large Gala No.F-158 before the end of September, 2019. Considering the fact that APMC itself has fixed the market value of large Gala No.F-158 at Rs.55,00,000/- in the year 201314, it is deemed appropriate to fix the upset value at Rs.55,00,000/-. The four eligible claimants shall quote their offers in a sealed cover and accordingly, the large Gala No.F-158 be allotted to the one who is quoting the highest price. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Following directions issued- (i) Respondent No.2 is not entitled to claim allotment of large gala and findings of the High Court qua respondent No.2 is set aside;
(ii) The findings of the High Court that the firm-’RVD’ is not entitled to claim allotment of large gala is affirmed; (iii) The possession of small Gala No.M-821 shall be restored back to the appellant and it shall vacate the large Gala No.F-158 on or before 30.09.2019. The amount of Rs.27,69,500/- deposited by the appellant towards the large gala No.F-158 shall be refunded to him by APMC immediately within two weeks from the date of his vacating; (iv) The upset value of large Gala No.F-158 shall be fixed at Rs.55,00,000/- as fixed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, APMC and the same shall be notified by APMC by the end of October, 2019. The four eligible claimants shall quote their offers for the large gala and shall submit sealed tenders to APMC on or before 15.11.2019. The sealed tenders are to be opened by APMC in the presence of a higher level officer preferably, the Joint Director of Marketing and in the presence of all the four claimants or their representatives on 22.11.2019; and (v) The large Gala No.F-158 shall be allotted to the claimant who has quoted the highest price. Payment of the amount for allotment of large gala by the successful allottee shall be paid as per the rules of APMC.[Paras 52-54] [210-D-H; 211-A-F] State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 65 : [2009] 4 SCR 866 – relied on. Hanumant Murlidhar Gavade v. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market and Others (2012) 1 SCC 729 : [2011]
16 SCR 229; M. Meenakshi and Others v. Metadin Agarwal (Dead) by LRs. and Others (2006) 7 SCC 470: [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 505 ; Anita International v. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh and Others (2016) 9 SCC 44 : [2016] 6 SCR 635 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.