IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 103 CWP-25721-2015 M/s Rawat Trading Co. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 103-1 CWP-25741-2015 M/s Rama Sales Corp. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 103-2 CWP-25767-2015 M/s Bharam Parkash Amit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 103-3 CWP-25771-2015 M/s Ruli Ram Madan Gopal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 29.05.2026 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 31.07.2026 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 01.08.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -2- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Karanjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Amar Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ***** VIKAS SURI, J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP-25721-2015, CWP-25741- 2015, CWP-25767-2015, CWP-25771-2015, which are taken up together at request and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, as common issue has been raised in all these writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, reference to the factual matrix is made from CWP-25721- 2018 titled as ‘M/s Rawat Trading Company vs. State of Haryana and others’. 2. The petitioners, in this bunch of cases, claim themselves to be old licensees of de-notified Anaaj Mandi (Grain Market), Safidon. The petitioner(s), are once again back before this Court, pressing for their claim for allotment of plots in the New Grain Market, Safidon, at concessional rates. 3. Tersly, shorn of details, the facts are that the petitioner(s) are stated to be doing business of commission agent from the date of issuance of the license under the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘1961 Act’). The date of initial issuance of license to the petitioner(s) is 1998 and qua the petitioner in this case (CWP-25721-2015), is 06.04.1998. SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -3- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases 4. In the year 2002, the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No.2) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Board’) invited applications from old licensees for allotment of sites in the New Grain Market at concessional rates. 5. The Petitioner alongwith other similarly situated persons submitted application forms with the Market Committee, Safidon (respondent No.3). Case of the petitioner as well as other similarly situated applicants was rejected by respondent No.3, vide order dated 19.12.2002, on the ground that as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable property) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Rules’), published vide notification dated 10.03.2000, the petitioners did not complete five years as on 01.01.2000 and thus, are not entitled/considered for allotment of plots under the old licensees category. The petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons filed CWP-616-2003 titled as ‘M/s Parmanand Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others’, impugning order dated 19.12.2002. 6. In such circumstances, the aforesaid provisions of the Rules were challenged by way of CWP-18176-2007 titled as ‘M/s Krishan Kumar Rohtash Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others’, which was decided vide judgment dated 30.04.2009, wherein this Court applying the doctrine of severability, to save the substantive part of the impugned rule, ordered the date stipulated in Clause (iii) of Rule 3 (1) to be severed from the rule. It was further held that those holding a valid license for at least five years on the last date for submission of applications would be eligible, if all other conditions are fulfilled. The SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -4- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases subsequent amendment, by way of substitution of the said sub-rule, on 01.09.2008, was also noticed in the said verdict. The amended rule provided period of four years of holding of a valid license on the date for inviting applications. 7. In view of the change brought about in the eligibility for allotment of plot, from five years licensee to four years, by notification dated 01.09.2008, and the rule as it stood prior to the amendment by way of substitution, having been read down by this Court, the pending writ petitions were permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal under Section 40 of the 1961 Act, before the Chief Administrator of the Board, vide order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner was also granted liberty for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that they were pursuing their remedy before this Court. 8. The appeals preferred before the Chief Administrator of the Board, were rejected by common order dated 28.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that the said firms did not have a valid license for a period of five years even on the last date of submitting the application for draw of lots held in December 2002. Thereafter, revision petitions were preferred before the State Government/Additional Chief Secretary (Revisional Authority under Section 40(3) of the 1961 Act), who without taking into consideration the amendment made vide notification dated 01.09.2008, rejected the claims of the petitioner(s) on the ground that the said amendment cannot be applied retrospectively. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by common order dated 13.03.2014 (Annexure P-6). SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -5- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases 9. After passing of the aforesaid order dated 13.03.2014 by Additional Chief Secretary, the petitioner learnt that the benefit of the amendment/notification dated 01.09.2008 has been granted to a similarly situated allottee, by the Chief Administrator, while considering the claim for allotment of plot. Thereby, the benefit of the amended rule was extended to a similarly situated allottee by the Chief Administrator, vide order dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-7). In view of the aforesaid order, the petitioners sought review of the order dated 13.03.2014 and to consider order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Chief Administrator extending the benefit of the notification dated 01.09.2008, being a subsequent event and germane to the lis. The review petitions were dismissed by a common order dated 01.10.2015 (Annexure P-8), whereby it was held that the notification dated 01.09.2008 was to operate prospectively. 10. The old grain market (Anaaj Mandi), Safidon was de-notified vide notification dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P-12). The grievance of the petitioners is that while de-notifying the old grain market, the respondent authorities failed to consider that the petitioners were running their business since the year 1998 till date and all of them were having valid licenses issued by respondent No.3, i.e. Market Committee, Safidon. It is averred that while de-notifying the old grain market, applications for allotment of plots at reserved price were not invited from the old licensee category and even after lapse of more than 16 years, no applications were invited by the respondent authorities from the old licensees. It is further averred that during the intervening period from 2002 till de-notifying the SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -6- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases old grain market in the year 2015, number of old licensees became eligible for allotment of plots under the Old Licensee Category (ii), who have been ignored. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has placed reliance upon the decision by a coordinate Bench in CWP-7243-2015, decided on 29.03.2017, titled as ‘Bhole Shankar Trading Company and others vs. State of Haryana and others’. On the basis of the decision cited, learned counsel contends that the aforesaid matter was disposed of with connected cases by a common judgment, involving the same question of law with regard to similarly situated persons. The petitioners in the said cases were also the old licensees of de-notified Grain Market, Safidon, who did not allegedly meet the eligibility criteria regarding holding of a valid license for at least five years on the last date for submission of application, like the petitioner in the instant case. 12. It is further contended that pursuant to the aforesaid decision dated 29.03.2017, the Chief Administrator of the Board passed order dated 21.08.2017 (endorsed on 16.11.2017), which ultimately came to be challenged by way of CWP-8822-2018 and other connected cases. The said cases stand disposed of by this Court, by a common judgment passed in CWP-8822-2018, decided on 29.05.2026, titled as ‘Bhole Shankar Trading Company and others vs. State of Haryana and others’. 13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has endeavoured to defend the impugned orders. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the petitioners in these writ petitions, were allegedly ineligible like the petitioners in the other writ petitions, SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -7- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases inasmuch as they were not holding a valid license for the stipulated period on the last date of making the application for allotment of plot. It is further contended that in the said cases, respondents have admitted that the business of the Old Grain Market, Safidon, had not been completely shifted in the year 2002 and the sale/purchaser of agricultural produce continued in the Old Grain Market till its de-notification on 04.03.2015. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record, with their able assistance. 14. It would be useful to first refer the relevant portion of the judgment dated 29.03.2017, upon which strong reliance has been placed, on behalf of the petitioners. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder: “[3] The State of Haryana/Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (in short, `the Board') decided to construct a New Grain Market at Safidon in place of Old Grain Market. After conducting survey in respect of the existing licensees who were operating in the Old Grain Market, applications were invited in the year 2002 from them for allotment of plots in the New Grain Market on preferential basis. [4] It may be mentioned here that the State of Haryana has, in exercise of its powers under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, formulated the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000 (for brevity, `the 2000 Rules') and Rule 3 of these Rules deals with disposal of immovable property. The relevant part of Rule 3 reads as follows:- “3(1) All immovable properties in the Market developed by the Board or Market Committees shall be disposed of by way of allotment/transfer/open auction in accordance SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -8- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases with the provisions of these rules. The shop plots will be allotted to the old licensees of category (ii) i.e. ( Kachcha Arhatiyas ) of old market which is to be de-notified, resulting in displacement of such licensed dealers of category (ii), on free hold basis, for conducting the business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the new markets, on the following terms and conditions, namely: (i) in the markets where some auctions have already been held, the allotment shall be made on the basis of the average price of the last auction; (ii) in the markets where no auction has so far been held, the allotment price shall be fixed at thirty five percent above the reserve price. The reserve price shall be worked out as per the formula approved by the Board vide its resolution dated the first June, 1987 or any other formula to be approved by the Board from time to time; (iii) only those category (ii) licensees shall be eligible for allotment of plots who had valid licence of two years on the date of first auction, in the case of mandis where some auctions have already been held. In the case of already developed mandis where no auctions have so far been held, the licensee should have valid licence of category(ii) for at least five years as on 1 st January, 2000. In the case of mandis to be developed in future, the licensee should have at least two years' licence of category (ii) on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1984), or the date of transfer of land to the Market Committee, if the land is obtained otherwise, as the case may be. (iv) Such licensees must have paid market fee of at least Rs.5000/- annually for the last two years: Provided that in the case of a category (ii) licensee who does not pay market fee himself, his annual turnover during the last two years should be at least rupees two lakh fifty thousand; (v) the licence of such category(ii) licensee should not have been revoked for a period of two months at a time for violation of any of the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder, or non- payment of market fee etc.; (vi) the category (ii) licensee must have an independent premises, either own or rented, in the old mandi to be denotified. In case there are more than one licensee in the same premises, the oldest firm or the one which is agreed upon in SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -9- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases writing by all the firms occupying the same premises, shall be eligible; (vii) to (xii) XX XX XX XX (2) All booth plots, the balance shop plots and any other commercial site shall be disposed of through open auction. However, a site (including shop plot, booth plot or any other plot), subject to availability, may be allotted at thirty-five percent above the reserve price to the following:” [Emphasis applied] [5] It may be seen from the above-extracted Rule that a licensee of Old Grain Market which is to be de-notified on establishment of New Grain Market is entitled to allotment of plot in the New Grain Market on preferential basis subject to fulfilment of conditions like possession of valid licence for a period of five years as on the cut-off date. [6] Rule 3 of the 2000 Rules ibid was inserted in deference to the dictum in M/s Labha Ram and sons vs State of Punjab, 1998(5) SCC 207. [7] After inviting applications from the Old Licensees of Grain Market, Safidon in December, 2002, the draw of lots was held on 16.12.2002 and pursuant thereto, 151 out of 224 old licensees, who were found eligible, were allotted plots in the New Grain Market. All these old licensees were those who possessed a valid licence for a period of at least five years, namely, such licenses was granted on or before 09.12.1997. [8] It may be further seen that as per the provisions of the Rules applicable in the year 2002, the old licensee was required to possess a valid license for at least five years as on 01.01.2000, irrespective of the date of inviting the applications. The validity and propriety behind fixation of one static cut-off date was thus put to judicial scrutiny in M/s Krishan Kumar Rohtas Kumar and others vs State of Haryana and others 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 217 and a Division Bench of this Court held that the prescription of SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -10- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases cut-off date was totally arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court applied the doctrine of severability and directed the deletion of words “as on Ist January 2000”, which were appearing in Clause (iii) of Rule 3(1) of 2000 rules, reproduced above. [9] However, well before the above cited decision was rendered by this Court, the authorities themselves realised the hardship being caused by the cut-off date and vide Notification dated 01.09.2008, Rule 3(1) was substituted as follows: “Only those category (ii) Licensees shall be eligible for allotment of plots who had valid license of four years on the date fixed for inviting applications for draw of lots.” [10] Though Rule 3(1) was amended by the respondents on 01.09.2008 but the said amendment being prospective, it was inapplicable in the case of old licensees of Grain Market, Safidon. Nevertheless, the decision rendered by this Court in M/s Krishan Kumar Rohtas Kumar and others(supra) was fully attracted and consequently the eligibility was required to be determined on the assumption that the words “as on 1 st January 2000” are deemed to have been deleted. In this manner the old licensees of Grain Market, Safidon, were required to possess a valid licence for five years immediately preceding the date of inviting applications in the year 2002, namely, such license must have been granted on or before 09.12.1997. [11] The petitioners in these cases also claim themselves to be the old licensees of Grain Market, Safidon. Their grievance is against the orders passed by Market Committee, Chief Administrator of the Board or the State Government whereby their claim for allotment of plots in the New Grain Market Safidon at concessional rates has been turned down on the ground that none of them was eligible in the year 2002 when applications were invited SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -11- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases from the old licensees, for none of the petitioners was having a valid licence granted on or before 09.12.1997, i.e. before the date of inviting applications in the year 2002. [12] Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this aspect of the matter, we are satisfied that none of the petitioner is entitled to claim parity with the allottees of 2002 for the simple reason that each petitioner in these cases has got the licence between 01.03.1999 to 06.01.2015. None of them had a valid licence for five years on or before 09.12.1997. [13] The principle of `equality' can be pressed into aid only when the fact situation is totally similar. Where two similarly placed persons are dealt with differently then only it may amount to pick and choose. In the case in hand the facts are entirely different, for the old licensees to whom plots were allotted in the year 2002 possessed valid licence for a period of more than five years before December 2002, whereas none of the petitioners got the licence before 01.03.1999. In fact, majority of the petitioners have got licences between 2008 to 2014 only. They cannot, thus, claim parity with the 2002 allottees as unequals cannot be treated equals. [14] Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the Notification dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P-9) whereby the Old Grain Market at Safidon was formally de- notified. He relies upon M/s Labha Ram and sons (supra) as well as a decision of this Court in M/s. Om Parkash Arora and Co.and other vs State of Punjab and other, 2014(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 213. In the later decision this Court took notice of the fact that business of Old Grain Market was shifted to the New Grain market in the year 1983 but the Old Grain Market was de-notified in the year 1995. This Court further noticed that “no applications were ever invited for allotment of plots on concessional rates in the New Grain Market”. It was in that backdrop that this Court SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -12- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases directed as follows: “10. We therefore dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to verify and ascertain from the records and if satisfied that the left out petitioners were working in the old Grain Market under valid licneces till the business came to be shifted in the year 1983, let their cases be considered sympathetically for allotment of plot sites on the basis of concessional rates that may be determined keeping in view the rate of allotment on which the other writ petitioners have been allotted sites in the open auction. In other words, the rate of concessional allotment, if any decided to be made, can not be less than the rate of last allotment made by way of public auction. With a view to expedite the decision, we grant liberty to the left-out petitioners to submit their individual claims by way of representation along with necessary documents and upon receipt thereof, the respondents are directed to verify the records, hear them in person and decide their claims within a period of six months from the date of submission of such representations......” [15] This Court thus did not rule as a matter of legal principle that the date of de-notifying the Old Grain Market will be the singular factor to determine the eligibility of old licensees. [16] That apart, the question as to whether the business of old Grain Market at Safidon was shifted to the New Grain Market in the year 2002 itself or it continued to operate at both the markets till the year 2015 is essential a question of fact and can be determined after verification of the records. Further, whether or not the licensees who meanwhile were granted licences are to be included amongst the `old licensees' entails a Policy decision which can be taken by the respondents only. [17] We thus dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Chief Administrator of the Board to determine (i) whether the business of the old Grain Market at Safidon had been completely shifted in the year 2002 or thereafter and if so when?; (ii) whether any of the SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -13- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases petitioners had attained eligibility before shifting of the business?; (iii) whether the licensees who have completed four years validity period before 2015 as per the amended Rules, can also be considered in the category of `old licensees' and whether any allotment can be made to them at the concessional rate? [18] The Chief Administrator, Board shall determine these issues within a period of four months and, in case, any of the petitioners is found eligible, the Market Committee shall consider and allot a plot to such licensee at the concessional rate. However, those petitioners who are found ineligible and not entitled to allotment, shall be at liberty to avail their remedy in accordance with law against the orders to be passed by the Chief Administrator. [19] The Chief Administrator shall ensure that not more than one plot is allotted to one family in accordance with Rules.” 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 29.03.2017, reproduced hereinabove, while remanding the matter for decision of the Chief Administrator of the Board, had formulated three questions to be determined, which find mention in para 17 thereof. It is further argued that determination of the said questions, framed by this Court, would go to the root of the controversy, which could only be determined after verification of the records, and it is for the said purpose that the matter was remanded to the Chief Administrator of the Board, for its decision on the same. 15. The issues raised in the present petition(s) were also involved in CWP-7243-2015 and other connected cases, whereby a categoric finding has been returned in paras 12 and 13 of the said decision, SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -14- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases extracted herein before. The petitioner(s) are stated to be similarly placed. In view of the same, none of the petitioner(s) in the present case(s) are entitled to claim parity with the allottees of 2002, on the same analogy, that each petitioner in the present bunch of cases got his license between 06.04.1998 and 03.09.1998. As such, at the relevant time, none of them had a valid license for five years on or before 09.12.1997, i.e. the relevant cutoff date of December 2002. 16. However, taking into consideration the dictum of the aforesaid order dated 29.03.2017, for establishing the foundational facts for consideration of the plea for allotment of plot by determining the eligibility of holding a valid license for the requisite years preceding 2015, i.e. when the Old Grain Market was de-notified, is still pending consideration with the Chief Administrator of the Board, the said issue deserves to be looked into, in these petitions as well. It would be notable to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment dated 29.05.2026, which reads thus: “21. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots at concessional rate in the new grain market can only be determined after the authorities concerned have determined all the three questions formulated in the order dated 29.03.2017, passed by this Court in CWP-7243-2015 and other connected matters. 22. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure P-11) and 19.03.2018 (Annexure P- 14) are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Chief Administrator of the Board for determination of the questions formulated in para 17 of the judgment dated 29.03.2017 (supra) while strictly adhering to the other SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -15- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases directions contained in the said judgment, extracted hereinbefore. 23. It is also noticed that the authority concerned was directed to determine the issues formulated in March 2017 within a period of four months, pertaining to the claim of the petitioners, which dates back to 2002, for allotment of plots in the new grain market at concessional rate. Already, as much time has lapsed since then, respondent No.2 is directed to ensure compliance of the order dated 29.03.2017 within a period four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 24. The writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 16. On a conspectus of the aforesaid, one of the issues raised in the present petitions already stands decided against the petitioner(s) vide judgment dated 29.03.2017, whereas the other issue, wherein the claim is for consideration of the cases/entitlement of the old licensees of category (ii) for allotment of plots on reserve price upon de-notification of the old grain market, vide notification dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure P-12), on being remitted back, is still pending consideration with the Chief Administrator of the Board. 17. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots at concessional rate in the new Grain Market can only be determined after the authorities have determined the questions formulated in the order dated 29.03.2017 (supra). 18. We, thus, dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Chief Administrator of the Board to determine the aforesaid issue, SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment -16- CWP-25721-2015 and other cases along with the matters under consideration pursuant to remand, and in the light of the judgments passed in CWP-7243-2015 and CWP-8822-2018, noticed above. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed. (SUVIR SEHGAL) (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE JUDGE 31.07.2026 sumit.k Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No SUMIT KUMAR 2026.08.01 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment