/2023 INSC 0149/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  4826­4828 OF 2022
Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs               ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.       …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the High
Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   Letters
Patent   Appeal   Nos.   2130/2011   and   2131/2011   and   the
subsequent   order   dated   17.12.2013   passed   in   CM   No.
5249/2013 in LPA No. 2130/2011, by which, the Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   Said   Letters
Patent Appeals thereby confirming the judgment and order
passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   dismissing   the   writ
petitions,   the   original   writ   petitioner   has   preferred   the
present appeals.
1

2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are
as under: ­
2.1 That   the   appellant   became   the   owner   of   Shop   No.   27
situated   in   the   Agricultural   Produce   Market,   Chandigarh.
Respondent No. 5 herein was the tenant of the said shop.
Both   the   appellant   as   well   as   respondent   No.   5   were
holding the requisite licences to do business in the market
area.   Ejectment   proceedings   were   initiated   by   the
appellant against respondent No. 5. The order of ejectment
came   to   be   confirmed   by   the   High   Court.   Therefore,
respondent No. 5 shifted as a tenant to Shop No. 12 in the
year   2007   and   applied   for   change   of   address   to   the   new
shop, however, the same was rejected and respondent No.
5   was   asked   to   surrender   his   licence   and   apply   for   new
one.   The   appellant   applied   for   licence   for   selling
fruits/vegetables   and   State   Agricultural   Marketing   Board
issued the same. Since then, the appellant is running  the
business from Shop No. 27 owned by him. Respondent No.
5 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the
order   dated   05.07.2007   by   which   his   application   for
change   of   address   to   the   new   Shop   No.   12   was   rejected.
2

The   order   dated   05.07.2007   was   stayed.   The   stay   was
continued   up  to   31.03.2009   i.e.,  till   the   validity  of   licence
of   respondent   No.   5.   That   thereafter,   the   Market
Committee,   Chandigarh   rejected   the   application   of
respondent No. 5 for renewal of licence. The same was the
subject   matter   of   another   writ   petition   before   the   High
Court   being   Writ   Petition   No.   5886/2009.   That   pursuant
to   the   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   respondent   No.   5
continued   to   function   as   per   the   old   licence.   That   the
Licence Committee constituted under Licensing of Auction
Platform Rules, 1981 decided that the site in the platform
would be allotted on the basis of “One Site One Shop” and
the   name   of   respondent   No.   5   was   shown   as   co­allottee
along with the appellant. Aggrieved with this, the appellant
filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court,   being   Writ
Petition   No.   12684/2009.   The   High   Court   by   a   common
judgment   and   order   dated   26.09.2011   allowed   Writ
Petition   No.   5886/2009   filed   by   respondent   No.   5   and
directed   that   the   licence   of   respondent   No.   5   be   renewed.
The High Court also held that respondent No. 5 is entitled
to   use   the   platform   in   front   of   Shop   No.   27   till   any
3

alternative   policy   comes   by   way   of   amendment   in   the   Act
or   the   Rules,   pertaining   to   the   issue   of   rights   to   use   the
platform.  The learned  Single  Judge  also   held that  right   to
use the platform and to have the licence to do the business
in the market area both are distinct and different and the
two rights were not directly linked.
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   common
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of
the   High   Court   the   appellant   preferred   the   letters   patent
appeals   before   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.   By
the   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   letters
patent appeals and has confirmed the order passed by the
learned   Single   Judge   holding   that   right   to   use   the   shop
and/or   having   a  licence  and   right  to   use  the   platform  are
not   directly   related.   The   Division   Bench   of   the   High   court
also  observed that respondent No. 5 is using  the platform
since   1970   i.e.,   much   prior   to   the   appellant   getting   the
licence   and   therefore,   being   a   senior   licencee,   he   gets   the
right   to   use   the   platform   allotted   to   him   i.e.,   in   front   of
Shop No. 27. 
4

2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
of   the   High   Court   the   original   writ   petitioner   –   licence
holder and owner of Shop No. 27 who is also claiming the
right   to   use   the   platform   in   front   of   Shop   No.   27   has
preferred the present appeals. 
3. Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior   Advocate,   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant(s)   has   vehemently   submitted   that
the   learned  Single  Judge as  well  as  the  Division  Bench  of
the   High   Court   have   materially   erred   in   confirming   the
allotment of the auction platform in question, in favour of
original respondent No. 5. 
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant   herein   was   granted   the
licence in the year 2007, however, so far as respondent No.
5   is   concerned,   he   applied   for   a   fresh   licence/renewal   in
the   year   2009   and   he   was   issued   a   fresh   licence   in   the
year   2010   and   therefore,   as   per   seniority   the   appellant
herein was entitled to priority. 
3.2 It is further submitted that even at the time of submitting
the application for fresh licence/renewal in the year 2009,
5

respondent No. 5 submitted an affidavit dated 20.08.2009
deposing  that  he will not  claim  any  right  over  the auction
platform. That in fact the licence was issued only after the
said affidavit. 
3.3 It   is   next   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   materially
erred   in   observing   and   holding   that   carrying   on   the
business in the shop and on the auction platform both are
distinct   and   separate.   That   the   right   to   use   a   particular
site in the  platform  is connected with  the right  to  use the
particular corresponding shop in view of the clear policy of
the board i.e., “One Site One Shop”. 
3.4 It   is   contended   that   the   appellant   herein   is   doing   the
business,   has   the   licence   and   he   is   allotted   shop   no.   27
and therefore, he is entitled to the allotment of the auction
platform adjacent to and/or in front of shop No. 27. 
3.5 It   is   further   contended   that   so   far   as   respondent   No.   5   is
concerned, he is doing  business in  shop No. 12 therefore,
not   to   permit   the   appellant(s)   to   do   business   on   the
auction   platform   which   is   adjacent   to   shop   No.   27   and
allotting auction platform to respondent No. 5 who is doing
6

business   in   shop   no.   12,   just   adjacent   to   shop   No.   27   is
unreasonable and arbitrary.
3.6 It   is   next   contended   that   the   appellant(s)   herein
approached   the   learned   Single   Judge   challenging   the   co­
allotment of the site to respondent No. 5. That in any case
the   appellant(s)   do   not   succeed   in   such   challenge,   they
cannot   be   worse   of   compared   to   the   position   which   they
were in prior to filing of the writ petition.   
4. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Vatsal
Joshi,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
Chandigarh Market Committee. It is vehemently submitted
that   after   the   interim   order   dated   05.08.2016   was   passed
by   this   Court,   the   representation   made   by   the   appellant
herein   has   been   dealt   with   and   considered   by   the   Market
Committee and a detailed reasoned order has been passed
by   the   Market   Committee   rejecting   the   representation   of
the appellant.  
4.1 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   allotment   of   auction
platform is to be made as per the policy. That it is rightly
observed   and   held   by   the   High   Court   that   to   do   business
in  the shop and  on the auction platform  are different and
7

distinct.   That   as   such   there   is   no   policy   and/or   rule
pointed out on behalf of the appellant that a licence holder
is entitled to carry on the business and/or allotment of the
auction   platform   just   adjacent   to   and/or   in   front   of   shop
occupied by him. 
4.2 It is next submitted that as respondent No. 5 was found to
be   doing   business   since   1970   and   thereafter,   he   applied
for   renewal   of   the   licence   in   the   year   2009;   he   has   been
allotted the platform in front of shop No. 27. 
4.3 It   is   vehemently   submitted   that   the   appellant   and/or   any
other licence holder doing business in the respective shop
cannot as a matter  of right claim allotment of the auction
platform at a particular place. 
4.4 It is contended that as such, existing sheds in the Market
Committee   collapsed  on   10.06.2007   and  thereafter,  sheds
were   reconstructed   in   the   year   2009.   That   thereafter,   the
Secretary   Agriculture,   U.T.   Chandigarh   laid   down   the
principles   and   guidelines   at   the   first   instance,   all   those
allottees,   who   were   allotted   sheds   for   working   prior   to
collapse of sheds on 10.06.2007 were entitled to be allotted
shed/space   as   they   existed   on   the   date   when   the   shed
8

collapsed.   That   the   appellant   was   issued   the   licence   on
16.07.2007   whereas   the   sheds   collapsed   on   10.06.2007,
therefore, the appellant was not in possession of the shed
earlier   to   the   collapse   on   10.06.2007   and   therefore,   his
case is not covered under the aforesaid policy. 
4.5 It   is   further   contended   that   the   action   of   the   Market
Committee   in   allotting   the   sheds   is   absolutely   in
consonance   with   the   guidelines/policy   laid   down   by   the
Secretary, Agriculture Department, Chandigarh. 
    
5. While   opposing   the   present   appeals,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.   5   has   argued   that
as such respondent No. 5 was carrying on business on the
platform   even   at   the   time   of   the   collapse   of   shed   on
10.06.2007   and   was   having   a   valid   licence   since   1970.
However,   at   the   time   of   allotment   of   newly   constructed
sheds, licence of the firm was not valid due to non­renewal
and   the   case   for   grant   of   licence   was   pending   for
consideration in the office of the Committee, and the same
was   finally   granted   in   the   month   of   February,   2010.   It   is
submitted that thereafter on constitution of the Committee
the   allotment   of   the   shed   was   made   to   respondent   No.   5,
9

being a licencee of the Committee and possession holder of
the   shed   prior   to   the   collapse   of   the   shed.   Making   the
above submissions it is prayed that the present appeals be
dismissed. 
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective   parties   at   length.   We   have   gone   through   the
impugned   judgment(s)   and   order(s)   passed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court.
6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellant
is claiming shed/auction platform which is just adjacent to
and/or in front of shop No. 27 and/or  at any other place.
However, the appellant is unable to establish and/or show
any   specific   rules   and/or   regulations   with   respect   to   the
allotment   of   the   shed/auction   platform   and   that   too,   just
adjacent   and/or   in   front   of   shop   in   which   a   particular
person   is   carrying   on   the   business.   Therefore,   in   the
absence   of   any   specific   right   in   his   favour,   the   appellant
could   not   have   prayed   for   the   allotment   of   shed/auction
platform   just   adjacent   to   and/or   in   front   of   his   shop   No.
27. 
10

6.2 At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   even   other
persons   are   allotted   the   shops/auction   platforms   at
different   places.     It   is   also   required   to   be   noted   that
number   of   persons   doing   business   is   more   than   the
availability of auction platforms.  
6.3 At   this   stage,   it   is   also   required   to   be   noted   that   as   such
pursuant   to   orders   passed   by   this   Court   on   06.05.2016
and   05.08.2016,   petitioner   –   appellant   made   the
representation.  The orders are as under: ­    
“Mr.   Patwalia,   learned   senior   counsel   states   that
there   are   certain   other   platforms   which   are
available. If that is so, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may
consider whether one such platform can be allotted
to the petitioner or not. 
Petitioner   is   entitled   to   make   a   representation   in
this behalf within one week. 
List the matter in the month of August, 2016.”
xxx
“It   is   stated   by   Mr.   P.   S.   Patwalia,   learned   senior
counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioner,   that   platform
No. 13 is available. 
Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   submits   that
the   matter   is   pending   consideration   and   shall   be
decided within a period of four weeks. 
We   hope   that   the   respondents   shall   consider   it
favourably. 
List the petitions after four weeks.”
11

Even   the   representation   was   permitted   to   be   made   to
consider   on   the   statement   made   by   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant that there are certain
other platforms which are available and to that, this Court
observed   that   if   that   is   so,   respondent   Nos.   2   to   4   may
consider whether one such platform can be allotted to the
appellant   or   not.   That   thereafter,   a   representation   was
made   by   the   appellant   which   has   been   dealt   with   and
rejected by the Committee by a detailed order which is self­
explanatory. 
6.4 In   the   representation/order,   it   is   specifically   mentioned
that   earlier   the   shed   collapsed   on   10.06.2007   and
thereafter,   the   shed   was   reconstructed   in   the   year   2009
and a policy decision was taken pursuant to the directions
issued   by   the   Secretary,   Agriculture,   that   at   the   first
instance,   all   those   allottees,   who   were   allotted   sheds   for
working   prior   to   collapse   of   sheds   on   10.06.2007   were
entitled   to   be   allotted   shed/space   as   they   existed   on   the
date   when   the   shed   collapsed.   Thereafter,   the   allotment
has   been   made   as   per   the   principles   and   guidelines
12

regarding allotment of auction platforms as directed by the
Secretary. The guidelines are as under: ­ 
“1. At   the   first   instance,   all   those   allottees,   who
were allotted sheds for working prior to collapse
of   shed   on   10.06.2007   will   be   allotted
sheds/spaces   as   they   exited   as   on   the   date
when the shed collapsed.
2. In   case   after   that,   there   are   more   spaces
available,   those   spaces   shall   be   advertised   and
fresh   applications   from   the   bonafide   license
holders   as   on   the   date   of   inviting   the
applications   or   those   licensees   whose   licenses
are due for renewal and are pending for renewal
with   the   competent   authority   as   on   date   of
calling   applications   shall   be   called,   after   giving
due notice of at least 20 days. Once that is done
and   in   case   legally   bonafide   applications   are
more   than   the   number   of   available   space,   draw
of lots will be held in the presence of Chairman,
Market Committee, Joint Secretary, Agricultural
Marketing   Board   and   applicants   who   desire   to
be   present.   Based   on   draw   of   lots   further
allotment   of   sites/working   spaces   shall   be
made. 
3. These   directives   shall   be   followed   till   such   time
the Government makes a new rule under the Act
and gives new guidelines.
Further keeping in view my finding in this case,
I   am   of   the   considered   opinion   that   any
allotment   which   has   been   made   to   other   than
the   erstwhile   allottees   who   were   sitting   and
doing   their   business   as   on   10.06.2007   is   not
just and valid and needs to be set aside. 
I direct the Market Committee to issue notice for
cancellation   of   allotted   site/shed   to   those
allotees who were not allottees as on 10.06.2007
and   after   giving   them   due   opportunity   of   being
heard,   may   pass   appropriate   orders   keeping   in
view the principle which I have laid down in this
order."
13

6.5 That   thereafter,   the   allotments   have   been   made   in
accordance with the guidelines/principles laid down by the
Secretary,   Agriculture.   Under   the   circumstances,   the
appellant   is   not   entitled   to   any   preferential   treatment
and/or   allotment   dehors   observance   of   principles   and
guidelines   issued   by   the   Secretary   regarding   allotment   of
the auction platforms. The appellant is to be treated at par
and   equally   with   other   persons   doing   business   in   the
market and on the auction platform. 
    
6.6 Even as rightly observed by the High Court, to do business
in   the   shop   and   to   carry   on   business   on   the   auction
platform, are both different and distinct. Merely because a
person   is   having   a   licence   and   doing   business   in   a
particular   shop,   he  is   not   entitled  to  the   auction   platform
as   a   matter   of   right   and   that   too,   in   front   of   and/or
adjacent   to   his   shop.   No   such   rule   and/or   regulation
and/or   guideline   supporting   such   a   claim   has   been
brought to the notice of the High Court or even this Court. 
6.7 Now   so   far   as   the   allotment   of   the   auction   platform   in
favour   of   respondent   No.   5   is   concerned,   it   is   required   to
be   noted   that   according   to   the   Market   Committee   and
14

respondent   No.   5,  respondent  No.   5   has   been   holding   the
licence   and   doing   business   since   1970,   whereas   the
appellant herein got the licence on 16.07.2007. It appears
that   at   the   relevant   time   when   the   allotment   of   the   newly
constructed shed was made, the licence of respondent No.
5   was   not   renewed   and/or   not   valid   due   to   non­renewal
and   the   case   for   grant   of   licence   was   pending   for
consideration   in   the   office   of   the   Committee,   which   was
granted   in   the   month   of   February,   2010.   Thereafter,   the
shed has been allotted in favour of respondent No. 5 being
a   licencee   of   the   Market   Committee   and   being   in
possession   of   the   shed   prior   to   collapse   of   the   shed.       All
these aspects in detail have been considered by the Market
Committee while deciding the representation.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
in   absence   of   any   specific   rule/regulation   to   the   contrary
and   when   the   allotment   of   the   sheds   is   made   as   per   the
principles/guidelines   of   the   Secretary,   Agriculture,
reproduced   hereinabove,   and   in   absence   of   any   specific
rule   in   favour   of   appellant(s),   right   to   claim   the   allotment
just in front of his shop and/or adjacent to the same and
15

when the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 is made
as   per   the   policy   and   guidelines,   both   the   learned   Single
Judge   and   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   have   rightly
held   against   the   appellant   and   have   rightly   dismissed   the
writ   petition(s)   and   appeal(s).   We   are   in   complete
agreement with the view taken by the High Court. 
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present   appeals   lack   merit   and   the   same   deserve   to   be
dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.      
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 03, 2023 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
16