CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-30691-2018(O&M) Date of decision : 23.07.2026 M/s Raja Ram Subhash Chand ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Aman Bahri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shivansh Sood,Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) CM-11596-CWP-2026 1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for preponment of the date of hearing from 24.09.2026 to some early date. 2. On joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main case is preponed from 24.09.2026 to today itself. 3. Application stands allowed. DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 2 CWP-30691-2018 1. In the present civil writ petition, the following prayers have been made:- [a] call the complete record of the case of the petitioner; [b] issue a writ in the nature of ‘Certiorari’ for quashing the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 (dispatched on 15.05.2018) (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent no.1 and for quashing the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent no.2 whereby the respondents without adverting to the order dated 29.03.2017 (Annexure P- 10) passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No.7243 of 2015 titled as “M/s. Bhole Shankar trading Company & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others” and in connected petitions had rejected the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot being old licensee by passing an order, which is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed; [c] Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ directing the respondents to allot shop/plot in the new Grain Market, Safidon in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in case of “M/s. Prem Chand Trilok Chand & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others” judgment dated 07.08.1991 (Annexure P-6) and in case of “M/s. Labha Ram & Sons & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others” judgment dated 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-8) and vide judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in case of “M/s. Jai Timber Traders & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others” decided on 07.05.2013 (Annexure P-13); [d] issue a writ in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ directing the respondents to invite applications from the eligible candidate/ petitioner to consider his case for allotment of plot under the old licensee of Category (ii) and after considering the candidature of the petitioner, plot be allotted to the petitioner; [e] It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present writ petition, one plot be kept reserved for the petitioner till the final adjudication of the matter in dispute; DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 3 [f] Further issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. [g] exempt the petitioner from filing certified and true typed copies of annexures and they may kindly be permitted to place on record legible copies thereof; [h] dispense with advance notice to the respondents; [i] award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court dated 29.05.2026, passed in CWP No. 8822 of 2018, titled as “Bhole Shankar Trading Company and others versus State of Haryana and others”, and other connected matters and has highlighted the relevant portion of the said judgment which reads as under:- “17. It would be apposite to refer to the operative portion of the judgment dated 29.03.2017, whereby the writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Chief Administrator of the Board to determine the questions formulated therein, which reads thus, “[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 DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 4 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 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.” 18. A perusal of the above reproduction would show that the Chief Administrator of the Board was under a mandate to consider and decide the following questions: (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 petitioners had attained eligibility before shifting of the business?; and (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 DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 5 whether any allotment can be made to them at the concessional rate? 19. A perusal of the impugned order dated 21.08.2017 (endorsed on 16.11.2017) would show that after perusal of the record, only the first question stands answered, whereby it has been held that it is evident that the business of the old grain market, Safidon had not been completely shifted in the year 2002 and as a matter of fact, the sale/purchase of agricultural produce continued in the old grain market till its de- notification on 04.03.2015. Other than the said finding, nothing has been pointed out from the impugned order that could be said to have determined the other two questions extracted above. Further, a perusal of the impugned order dated 19.03.2018 shows that even the revisional authority has not examined the said aspect and thus, the order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Court has not been complied with in letter and spirit. 20. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents are not in a position to point out to any finding or observation from the impugned orders, which would show consideration of questions (ii) and (iii) or any determination in that regard. 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 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 DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 6 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. 25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand closed.” 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that in the present case there is an additional issue which be kept open for final consideration. It is submitted that as per the judgment of the Co-ordinate Division Bench dated 29.03.2017, passed in CWP-7243- 2015, of which non compliance was alleged by the petitioners in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 29.03.2017, the Co-ordinate Division Bench had observed that the Chief Administrator shall ensure that not more than one plot is allotted to one family in accordance with Rules. Paragraph no.19 of the said judgment has been highlighted by the learned senior counsel representing the respondents no.2 and 3, which is reproduced as under:- “19. The Chief Administrator shall ensure that not more than one plot is allotted to one family in accordance with Rules. March 29, 2017” 4. It is submitted that the respondents have no objection to consider the matter in accordance with the judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court but it may also be clarified that it would be open to the respondents to consider the case of the DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-30691-2018(O&M) 7 petitioner by taking into consideration the direction given in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 29.03.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that they have no objection to the said course of action. 5. Keeping in view above said facts and circumstances and fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents no.2 and 3, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as CWP No.8822-2018 along with other connected matters, titled as “Bhole Shankar Trading Company and others versus State of Haryana and others”, decided on 29.05.2026. 6. It would be open to the respondents to also consider the eligibility of the petitioner by taking into consideration the direction given in paragraph 19 of the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed in CWP-7243- 2015 along with connected matters. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 23, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.28 10:25 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment