w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Paras Enterprises v/s Director, Department of Agricultural Marketing & Another

    Civil Writ Petition No. 2337 of 2000

    Decided On, 14 July 2000

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J. SHETHNA

    For the Appellant: Manoj Bhandari, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------



Judgment Text

1. The petitioner has challenged in this petition an advertisement dated 19-6-2000 (Annex. 3) issued by the respondent Mandi Samiti for auctioning the vacant shops. As per the impugned advertisement, auction was to take place on 14-7-2000 at 11-00 a.m. I.e. today.

2. Today, in the morning, it was. mentioned by the learned counsel Shri Bhandari for circulation of the matter when he submitted

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

that if the matter is not heard and interim order is not passed today then it would be meaningless, therefore, permission was granted to circulate this matter after recess at 2-00 p.m.

3. Learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the petitioner made a grievance that as per the order dated 6-8-99 passed by my learned brother V. G. Palshikar, J. In writ petition No. 2743/95, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent Mandi Samiti within two weeks from the date of order, but the same remained unreplied and not decided by the Samiti within a period of six weeks as directed by this Court. He, therefore, submitted that without deciding the representation the respondent Samiti cannot auction the shops. If the petitioner had made representation within two weeks as ordered by my learned brother V. G. Palshikar, J. and the said representation was not decided within six weeks thereof then in my opinion the petitioner should have immediately moved this Court by way of contempt proceedings or any other appropriate proceedings, but they have kept mum in the matter for all these period about one year. Not only that though the advertisement dated 19-6-2000 was published they have preferred to approach this Court only on the last minute when the auction was kept at 11-00 a.m. on 14-7-2000 i.e. today. It is well settled law that if the parties do not approach the Court within reasonable time then they would not be entitled for any relief much less discretionary relief from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If I entertain this petition today and grant interim order preventing auction or any other proceedings taken in auction in pursuance of the advertisement then practically I am allowing the petition without hearing the other side, therefore, I am of the opinion that only on this ground the petition is required to be dismissed.

4. Regarding non-compliance of the order dated 6-8-99 passed by my learned brother V. G. Palshikar, J, in writ petition No. 2743/95, nothing can be done except observing that if the petitioner is so advised, he can file contempt proceedings or any other proceedings.

5. One more prayer is made in this petition by the petitioner that the respondents be directed to allot atleast one shop to the petitioner in the principal yard situated at Mandore Road, Jodhpur, It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for allotment of plots/shops preferential treatment should be given to the existing traders. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment in case of Labha Ram and Sons and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others,

6. In Labha Ram's case (supra) the facts were totally different. In that case, new market was to be established u/s 3 and 4, whereas, in the present case Mandi Samiti is already established. There cannot be any quarrel with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding preferential treatment to be given to the existing traders, but in the instant case the Mandi Samiti is already established and by way of auction the Mandi Samiti is going to auction vacant shops, therefore, the judgment in Labha Ram's case (supra) has no application on the facts, of the present case.

7. Before parting, it must be stated that no right much less fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India has been violated, therefore, in my opinion there is no substance in this matter and accordingly it is required to be dismissed.

8. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay petition is also dismissed.

O R