WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. on 16 October 2019

754

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 13 S.C.R.

WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. ETC.

A

v.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC.

(Civil Appeal No. 8015-8016 of 2019)

B

OCTOBER 16, 2019

[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale andTransfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab StateAgricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules,C1999 – r. 3 (iii) and (iv) – Validity of Rules 1999 and 2008 – Theold grain market was de-notified and a new market was set up –Dealers of the old market applied for allotment of plots/shops inthe new grain market – Their applications were rejected – WritPetitions – High Court did not grant relief in writ petitions decidedDin 2010 – However, in another set of writ petitions decided in 2015& 2016 the High Court granted relief to the dealers – AppellantsContended that the Rules were against the Labha Ram’s Case –On appeal, held: When Labha Ram’s case was decided there wasno provision for preferential allotment to the old dealers – Afterthis judgment that the 1999 Rules were notified – Thereafter (FirstEamendment) Rules 2008 come into existence, which were much moreliberal – Now, 50 % of the shops were reserved for the existinglicence holders and there were two important conditions; (i) thata person must have licence for 3 years and (ii) that the dealer musthave an annual turnover of Rs. 5 lakhs in each of the threeFfinancial years – If there were no conditions like the one laid downin the Rules, any person would get a licence, not transact anybusiness, and after a few months apply for a new shop at aconcessional rate – That would defeat the purpose which wassought to be highlighted by Labha Ram and Prem Chand Case –Thus, these Rules did not violate any of the provisions of theGConstitution including Art. 14 and are legally valid – PunjabAgricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale andTransfer of Plots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 – Punjab StateAgricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules,H

WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. v.STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

1999 – r.3 (iii) – Allotment of Plots/ Shops in the new market setup – Dealers of the old market applied for allotment of plots/ shopsin the new market – Applications were rejected – Writ Petitions –In the group of petitions which were decided in 2015 & 2016 theHigh Court granted some relief to the dealers – The High Courtheld that a person can furnish adequate proof of his working inthe denotified market yard even if he did not hold a licence onthe cut-off date – The market boards filed appeal before theSupreme Court – Held: r. 3 (iii), which provides that to prove theturnover, the dealer is required to produce form ‘M’ which is inthe nature of a daily return to be filed by the licensed dealer withthe Market Committee/ Board u/rr. 29(3) and 31(1) of the PunjabAgricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 – In theabsence of Form ‘M’ (daily return) the dealer can rely on form ‘H’(auction register) and ‘J’ (sale voucher) to prove his turnover –These have to be read along with form ‘F’ which is the form ofrenewal of licence – However, High Court held that form ‘F’(renewal of licence) was not the only document required fordetermination of eligibility of an old licensee for allotment of aplot, but the independent adequate proof of working in denotifiedmarket yard was required to be considered to determine theeligibility of the old licenses for allotment of plots – Reasoning ofHigh Court cannot be accepted – Licence is mandatory and noperson can carry on business in an agricultural market withouthaving a licence – The Rules provide that the renewal of the licenceshould be applied one month before the expiry of the previouslicence – Further, a person who has not renewed his licence withoutjustifiable cause, cannot get any benefit – Punjab AgriculturalProduce Markets (General) Rules, 1962.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. This Court is concerned with two sets of Rules,viz., the 1999 Rules and the 2008 Rules. The case of theappellants is that the Rules are against the judgment of thisCourt in Labha Ram and Sons and Othersvs. State of Punjab andOtherswherein while interpreting the provisions of the PunjabNew Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960), it washeld that the Government has an obligation to provide sufficient AB

CDEF

GH

Aaccommodation to all the existing licenced dealers with regardto the handicaps they suffered due to the creation of new marketarea. This Court also held that the dealers who were alreadyfunctioning in the de-notified markets should not be made tocompete with new entrants. This Court, further directed thatthe Government should fix a reasonable rate above the reserveBprice for such old licenced dealers. It would be pertinent tomention that when Labha Ram’scase was decided there was noprovision for preferential allotment to the old dealers. They hadto take part in auctions and pay the market price. It was afterthis judgment that the 1999 Rules were notified. [Para 8] [760-CF-G; 761-A-B]

2. As far as the Constitutional validity of these Rules isconcerned, this Court finds nothing in the Rules which isviolative of any provisions of the Constitution including Article14. The main contention is that the Rules violate the mandateDlaid down by this Court in Labha Ram’s case. Another threeJudge Bench of this Court in Prem Chand Trilok Chand andOthersvs. State of Haryana and Othersalso made similarobservations. [Para 11] [764-C]

3. The contention of the appellants is that as per the lawElaid down by this Court, all the old dealers should be providedshops/plots in the new market at the concessional rate. ThisCourt is unable to accept this contention. The judgment reliedupon by the appellants were given in light of the Rules whichdid not make any reservation whatsoever for existing licenceholders. Now, 50% of the shops are reserved for the existingFlicence holders but some conditions have been laid down. ThisCourt is concerned mainly with two conditions. The firstcondition is that a person must be having a licence for 3 years;and the second condition is that the dealer must have an annualturnover of Rs.5 lakhs in each of the three financial years. ThisGCourt finds that these conditions are salutary in nature. Theseare necessary to ensure that only those dealers who have beenin the trade for 3 years or more will be eligible for allotment ofplots/shops. Similarly, only those dealers who have a minimumturnover of Rs. 5 lakhs in each financial year are eligible. Onthe one hand the old dealers want that they should not be forcedHto compete with new people in the business and, on the other hand there is a self-defeating argument that the criteria of 3 yearsshould not be there. If such a criteria was not there, then anybodywould become eligible to get a licence even if he startedbusiness a day prior to the date of inviting applications. [Para12] [764-D-G]

4. The next issue relates to the judgments, in the secondbatch of cases where the Market Board is in appeal. This Courthas made reference to Rule 3(iii), which provides that to provethe turnover, the dealer is required to produce Form ‘M’ whichis in the nature of a daily return, to be filed by the licensed dealerwith the Market Committee/Board under Rules 29(3) and 31(1)of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules,1962 (hereinafter referred to as 1962 Rules). In the absence ofForm ‘M’ the dealer can rely on Form ‘H’ and ‘J’. Form ‘H’ isan auction register to be maintained by every dealer under Rule24(8) of the 1962 Rules. Form ‘J’ is the sale voucher to bemaintained by the dealer under Rule 24(14) of the 1962 Rules.The Rule is clear that if the dealer produces Form ‘M’ then thatwill be taken into consideration. In case the dealer does notproduce Form ‘M’ then he can prove his turnover by producingForms ‘H and J’. These have to be read along with Form ‘F’,which is the form of renewal for licence. [Para 16] [765-F-H; 766-A]

5. This Court is unable to accept the reasoning of the HighCourt in this regard. Licence is mandatory and no person cancarry on business in an agricultural market without having alicence. The Rules provide that renewal of the licence shouldbe applied for one month before the expiry of the previouslicence. The Rules further provide that if the licence is grantedwithin one month of its expiry then its renewal will be from thedate of expiry of the earlier licence, meaning that it will relateback to the date of original licence. [Para 17] [766-D-E]

6. Rule 3(iii-a) of the 2008 Rules provides an even biggerwindow for allotment of plots and lands to those licence holderswhose licences have expired but were renewed or fresh licenseobtained within 3 months of the expiry of the old license. A dealerwho gets his license renewed or obtains fresh license within 3months of the expiry of the old license, is not considered a newlicense, and for the purpose of allotment deemed to be eligible.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Rules provide that if a licence is not renewed within 1month of its expiry, it shall be treated to be a fresh licence. TheHigh Court has gone wrong in holding that even if the gapbetween the expiry of old licence and issuance of new licenceis more than 3 months, the dealer can still furnish adequateproof of working in the de-notified market yard. This Court isBclearly of the view that once the gap is more than 3 months thesame cannot be condoned unless the dealer gives an explanationto the satisfaction of the Market Board, with which issue weshall deal later on. [Para 18] [766-F-H]

7. Therefore, this Court disposes of the appeals with theCfollowing directions:-

(1) The Rules of 1999 and 2008 are legally valid;

(2) Any person who has obtained a license for the first timemust have a valid licence for a period of more than 3 years; D

(3) In case of renewal of license the Rules provide awindow of 3 months as discussed above. This Court furtherdirects that if any dealer had submitted a complete applicationfor renewal prior to the expiry of his licence but the licence wasnot renewed for 3 months for no fault of the dealer, then heEwould be entitled to count that period as a period of licence.

(4) This Court makes it clear that other than this, a dealermust have a license and a person who has not renewed hislicense without justifiable cause, cannot get any benefit.

(5) As far as proof of turnover is concerned, the primaryFevidence is Form ‘M’ and in the absence of form ‘M’, Form ‘H’and ‘J’. No other document can be taken into consideration forproving the turnover. [Para 23] [768-E-G; 769-A-B]

Labha Ram and Sons and Others v.State of Punjaband Others (1998) 5 SCC 207 : [1998] 3 SCR 112 ;GPrem Chand Trilok Chand and Others v.State ofHaryana and Others (1989) Supp 1 SCC 286 –referred to.

Crawford’s Interpretation of Laws, by Earl T.Crawford,Saint Louis Thomas Law book Company 1940 §271,Hpg. 539 – referred to.

WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. v.STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Case Law Reference

[1998] 3 SCR 112referred toPara 8(1989) Supp 1 SCC 286referred toPara 11

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8015-8016 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.05.2009 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. Nos. 3542 of2008 and 3383 of 2009

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 8017-8026, 8028, 8027, 8029 of 2019.

Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Gurinder Singh Gill, P. P. Nayak,Ms. Bhupinder, Ms. Vandhana Hooda, Ajay Pal, Siddharth Jain, UmangShankar, Aniket Jain, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Mrs. Amita Gupta,Ms. Neha Tyagi, Aayush Gupta, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, S. Maheshwari,Prem Sunder Jha, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Abhimanyu Tewari, Shree PalSingh, Viren Sibal, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Civil Appeal Nos.8015-8016/2019 @ SLP (C) Nos.24397-24398 of 2010, arise out of judgment dated 20.05.2009 whereas CivilAppeal No.8017-8026/2019 @ out of SLP(C) Nos. 28275-28284 of2015, arise out of judgment dated 06.01.2015, Civil Appeal No.8028 of2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.2034 of 2017, arise out of judgment dated18.05.2016, Civil Appeal No.8027 OF 2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.33899of 2016, arise out of judgment dated 24.05.2016 and Civil AppealNo.8029 OF 2019 @ out of SLP (C) No.15310 of 2017, arise outjudgment dated 18.05.2016, delivered by the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt.

3. The aforesaid appeals are being disposed of by a commonjudgment since they involve common questions of law.

4. In the first case, challenge was laid to various provisions ofThe Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and transfer ofPlots) (First Amendment) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2008 Rules), and Rule 3(iii) and (iv) of The Punjab State AgriculturalMarketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999 (hereinafterreferred to as the 1999 Rules). The High Court held these Rules tobe valid.

5. In the second group of appeals, the High Court vide judgmentsBdated 06.01.2015 and 18.05.2016 interpreted the Rules, holding that aperson can furnish adequate proof of his working in the de-notifiedmarket yard even if he did not hold a licence on the cut-off date.

6. To appreciate the issues in hand it will be pertinent to mentionthat the original writ petitioners before the High Court are licencedCtraders of agricultural produce and doing their business of sale andpurchase of agricultural produce in different Mandis in the State ofPunjab. In terms of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961), this work can only becarried out in Mandis or Markets set up for this purpose. Most of thepetitioners were licenced dealers working in the old markets.D

7. As a town or city grows the grain market has to be shifted.The old market is de-notified and a new market is set up. The dealerswho were doing this work in the old market applied for allotment ofplots/shops in the new grain market. Their applications having beenrejected, hence the writ petitions. The High Court did not grant anyErelief in the writ petitions decided in 2010, and the dealers have filedappeals before this Court. In the second group of petitions which weredecided in 2015 & 2016 the High Court granted some relief to thedealers. Hence, the market boards are in appeal before us.

8. We are concerned with two sets of Rules, viz., the 1999 RulesFand the 2008 Rules. The case of the appellants is that the Rules areagainst the judgment of this Court in Labha Ram and Sonsand Othersvs.State of Punjab and Others[1] wherein while interpreting theprovisions of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development andRegulation) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1960), itGwas held that the Government has an obligation to provide sufficientaccommodation to all the existing licence dealers with regard to thehandicaps they suffered due to the creation of new market area. ThisCourt also held that the dealers who were already functioning in thede-notified markets should not be made to compete with new entrants.

H1 (1998) 5 SCC 207

This Court, further directed that the Government should fix a reasonablerate above the reserve price for such old licenced dealers. It would bepertinent to mention that when Labha Ram’s case (supra) was decidedthere was no provision for preferential allotment to the old dealers.They had to take part in auctions and pay the market price. It wasafter this judgment that the 1999 Rules were notified. Relevant portionof Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules reads as follows:- A

B

“3. Sale of plots - All plots in the markets developed by the Boardor Committees shall be disposed of by way of open auction orallotment in accordance with the provisions of these rules:

Provided that the plots will be allotted to the licenced dealers ofold market which are denotified resulting in displacement of suchlicenced dealers on free hold basis for conducting business ofpurchase or sale of agricultural produce in the new markets onthe following terms and conditions, namely:- C

(i) xxxxxxxxx

D

(ii) the allotment price shall be fixed at thirty five percent abovethe reserve price in the markets where no auction has sofar been held;

(iii) only those licencees shall be eligible for allotment of plotson the price specified in clauses (i) and (ii) who have beenEgranted licenses in the old denotified markets for a minimumperiod of five years before the date of allotment. Suchlicencees must have submitted returns in Form M appendedto the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules1962 for the last four years out of these five years. TheFeligibility in respect of five years continuity shall be takenwith effect from the date of notice inviting applications forallotment;

(iv) xxxxxxxxx

(v) the licence should have been in possession of an independentGpremises either as a owner or a tenant in the old market;

(vi) To (xiii)xxxxxxxxx

9. The 1999 Rules were further amended by the 2008 Rules bywhich various amendments have been made in Rule 3 of the 1999Rules. The relevant amendments are extracted as under:- H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“4 In the said rules, in rule 3–

(a) before the existing proviso, the following proviso shall beadded, namely:- Provided that not more than fifty per cent of the available plotsshall be disposed of by way of allotment and the process ofallotment shall be completed before conducting the sale byauction.

(b) at the existing proviso, which has been re-numbered as thesecond proviso:- i for the word “provided”, the “provided further” shall besubstituted; and ii for condition Nos.(ii) and (iii), the following conditionsshall be substituted, namely–

(ii) the allotment price shall be fixed at the five per cent,above the reserve price in the markets, where noauction has so far been held; Provided that no corner plot shall be allotted by wayof allotment. The corner plot shall be allotted by wayof auction only, by adding ten per cent extra cost to thereserved price, fixed for plots, other than the cornerplots.

(iii) only those licencees shall be eligible for allotment ofplots on the price, specified in clauses (i) and (ii), whohave been granted licences in the old denotified marketsfor a minimum period of three years before the dateof allotment. Such licences must have submitted returnsin Form M appended to the Punjab Agricultural ProduceMarkets (General) Rules, 1962 for all three years orsuch licencee shall have to furnish adequate proof ofworking in the denotified old markets. In accordancewith the provisions of Form ‘H’ and Form ‘J’, asspecified in the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets(General) Rules, 1962 read with the provisions of Form‘F’, as specified in the bye-laws of the MarketCommittee for the aforesaid period of three years. Theperiod of three years referred to above shall be countedwith effect from the date of notice inviting applicationsfor allotment; WALAITI RAM CHARAN DASS & ORS. v.STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]

Provided that only those licensees shall be eligible forallotment of plots, who have transacted the business ofsale and purchase of agricultural produce for an amount,not less than five lacs rupees per annum during last threeyears.

(iii-a) to (xiii) xxx xxx xxx”

A

B

It would be appropriate to make a comparative chart of both theRules with regard to allotment of shops which is as follows:- H

A

A10. An analysis of the Rules of 1999 and 2008 makes it clearthat 50% of the respective plots in any market are to be auctioned andremaining 50% are to be given at a premium above the reserved price.In the 1999 Rules the premium was 35% and under the 2008 Rulesthe premium is 5%. The period of business vide the 1999 Rules was 5Byears and was reduced to 3 years under the 2008 Rules. It is morethan obvious that 2008 Rules are much more liberal.

11. As far as the Constitutional validity of these Rules isconcerned, we find nothing in the Rules which is violative of anyprovisions of the Constitution including Article 14. The main contentionCis that the Rules violate the mandate laid down by this Court in LabhaRam’s case (supra). Another three Judge Bench of this Court in PremChand Trilok Chand and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others[2]also made similar observations.

12. The contention of the appellants is that as per the law laidDdown by this Court, all the old dealers should be provided shops/plotsin the new market at the concessional rate. We are unable to acceptthis contention. The judgment relied upon by the appellants were givenin light of the Rules which did not make any reservation whatsoeverfor existing licence holders. Now, 50% of the shops are reserved forEthe existing licence holders but some conditions have been laid down.We are concerned mainly with two conditions. The first condition isthat a person must be having a licence for 3 years; and the secondcondition is that the dealer must have an annual turnover of Rs.5 lakhsin each of the three financial years. We find that these conditions areFsalutary in nature. These are necessary to ensure that only those dealerswho have been in the trade for 3 years or more will be eligible forallotment of plots/shops. Similarly, only those dealers who have aminimum turnover of Rs. 5 lakhs in each financial year are eligible.On the one hand the old dealers want that they should not be forced tocompete with new people in the business and, on the other hand thereGis a self-defeating argument that the criteria of 3 years should not bethere. If such a criteria was not there, then anybody would becomeeligible to get a licence even if he started business a day prior to thedate of inviting applications.

13. Similarly, the requirement of having Rs.5 lakhs as annualturnover is to ensure that only those dealers get shops/plots who areactually engaged in the business. The High Court has noted that theGovernment has fixed the price of wheat at Rs.1080/- per bag/quintaland the annual turnover would be achieved by sale or purchase of only500 bags. A person who does not do business of even 500 bags in ayear cannot claim that he is entitled to a shop at a concessional rate.The allotment of shop cannot be made a bounty or lottery for thosewho are transacting no or very little business but want to get shops/plots at concessional rate.

14. We may also point that a new market does not come intobeing overnight. First, land has to be acquired, then plans have to beapproved and only thereafter process of setting up a new market begins.The public, especially those in the trade of agricultural produce knowyears in advance that a new market is being set up. If there are noconditions like the ones laid down in the Rules, any person would get alicence, not transact any business, and after a few months apply for anew shop at a concessional rate. This would defeat the purpose whichwas sought to be highlighted by this Court in Labha Ram and PremChand’s case (supra). Therefore, according to us, both the conditionsof 3 years and having Rs. 5 lakhs turnover per financial year arereasonable and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

15. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeals challenging theConstitutional validity of the provisions.

16. The next issue relates to the judgments, in the second batchof cases where the Market Board is in appeal before us. We havemade reference to Rule 3(iii) above, which provides that to prove theturnover, the dealer is required to produce Form ‘M’ which is in thenature of a daily return, to be filed by the licensed dealer with theMarket Committee/Board under Rules 29(3) and 31(1) of the PunjabAgricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafterreferred to as 1962 Rules). In the absence of Form ‘M’ the dealer canrely on Form ‘H’ and ‘J’. Form ‘H’ is an auction register to bemaintained by every dealer under Rule 24(8) of the 1962 Rules. Form‘J’ is the sale voucher to be maintained by the dealer under Rule 24(14)of the 1962 Rules. The Rule is clear that if the dealer produces Form‘M’ then that will be taken into consideration. In case the dealer doesnot produce Form ‘M’ then he can prove his turnover by producing AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AForms ‘H and J’. These have to be read along with Form ‘F’, whichis the form of renewal for licence. The High Court held as follows:- “...Therefore, Form ‘F’ is not the only document required fordetermination of eligibility of an old licensee for allotment of aplot, but the independent adequate proof of working in the de-Bnotified market yard is required to be considered to determinethe eligibility of the old licensees for allotment of plots.

Rule 3(iii-a) of the Rules deals with a situation where after theexpiry of the licence, a fresh licence is issued in the name ofthe same firm or even after the splitting of firm, but when theClicence is issued in the name of same firm, as an entity eligiblefor allotment of a plot on concessional basis. Such provisionprovides the period prior to issuance of new licensee to be takeninto consideration for allotment of plot.”

17. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court inDthis regard. Licence is mandatory and no person can carry on businessin an agricultural market without having a licence. The Rules providethat renewal of the licence should be applied for one month before theexpiry of the previous licence. The Rules further provide that if thelicence is granted within one month of its expiry then its renewal willbe from the date of expiry of the earlier licence, meaning that it willErelate back to the date of original licence.

18. Rule 3(iii-a) of the 2008 Rules provides an even biggerwindow for allotment of plots and lands to those licence holders whoselicences have expired but were renewed or fresh license obtained within3 months of the expiry of the old license. A dealer who gets his licenseFrenewed or obtains fresh license within 3 months of the expiry of theold license, is not considered a new license, and for the purpose ofallotment deemed to be eligible. The Rules provide that if a licence isnot renewed within 1 month of its expiry, it shall be treated to be afresh licence. The High Court has gone wrong in holding that even ifGthe gap between the expiry of old licence and issuance of new licenceis more than 3 months, the dealer can still furnish adequate proof ofworking in the de-notified market yard. We are clearly of the view thatonce the gap is more than 3 months the same cannot be condoned unlessthe dealer gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the Market Board,with which issue we shall deal later on.H

19. We may point out that the learned counsel appearing fordealers has been at pains to point out that in some cases the licencecould not be renewed within 1 month or even within 3 months becauseof reasons beyond the control of licensee. One example given is wherethe original dealer died leaving a minor as his heir. It has also beencontended that there are some dealers who have been working for along period of time, may be 20 years but in the last 3 years, in oneyear, there is a slight short-fall to meet the target of Rs.5 lakhs turnover.It is contended that if these dealers could satisfy the Market Committee/Board for the reasons of gap in licence or short-fall in trade they shouldnot be denied shops in the new markets on allotment basis.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Boardsubmits that the dealers must comply with the Rules and if they fail tocomply with the Rules and the conditions laid therein, and if the dealersare unable to fulfil all the conditions, they cannot be allotted shops.

21. “§271. Miscellaneous Implied Exceptions from theRequirements of Mandatory Statutes, In General.—Even where a statute is clearly mandatory or prohibitory,yet, in many instances, the courts will regard certain conductbeyond the prohibition of the statute through the use ofvarious devices or principles. Most, if not all of these devicesfind their justification in considerations of justice. It is a wellknown fact that often to enforce the law to its letterproduces manifest injustice, for frequently equitable andhumane considerations, and other considerations of aclosely related nature, would seem to be of a sufficientcalibre to excuse or justify a technical violation of the law.”[3]

We are in agreement and approve the aforesaid passage becausethe Rules must be read in a reasonable manner. In cases like thepresent, where the old dealers are to be allotted shops if they can satisfythe concerned authority, be it the market committee or the board thata particular condition could not be met for a short period due to reasonsbeyond the control of the dealer, then even though he may not be instrict compliance of the rules, the power of relaxation must be readinto the Rules. We may refer to two instances from the cases before 3 Crawford’s Interpretation of Laws, by Earl T.Crawford, Saint Louis Thomas Lawbook Company 1940 §271, pg. 539

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

Aus. In the case of appellant M/s Lachhman Dass Krishan Baldev, thedates of renewal of licence was 06.09.2005, and the turnover for threeyears was Rs. 13,53,241, in 2005-06, Rs.21,19,272/- in 2006-07 andRs.23,65,574/-in 2007-08. It is stated that there was a delay of fewmonths in obtaining the renewal because a minor was involved. WeBare not going into the merits, but if that be so, then a case would bemade out for condonation of such minor variation. Similarly, in the caseof Walaiti Ram Charan Dass & Ors., the licence was held for morethan 13 years and there is a shortfall of Rs. 1,28,000/- and odd in theyear 2005-06, whereas the turnover in the next two years is much aboveRs.5 lakhs. His case may have to be considered sympathetically.C

22. We make it clear that since we are upholding the validity ofthe Rules, deviation from the Rules can only be done if it has occurreddue to reasons beyond the control of the dealer. One example of suchreason can be if the dealer being the sole proprietor is admitted inDhospital, or is otherwise incapacitated, which may either affect theturnover or the renewal of the licence. This is done only to avoidinjustice by following letter of the law and not the spirit thereof. Everylaw must be read in an equitable and humane manner. Only technicalviolations can be condoned and not violations which go to the root ofthe matter.E

23. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals with the followingdirections:- F

(1) The Rules of 1999 and 2008 are legally valid;

(2) Any person who has obtained a license for the first timemust have a valid licence for a period of more than 3years;

(3) In case of renewal of license the Rules provide aGwindow of 3 months as discussed above. We furtherdirect that if any dealer had submitted a completeapplication for renewal prior to the expiry of his licencebut the licence was not renewed for 3 months for nofault of the dealer, then he would be entitled to countHthat period as a period of licence.

(4) We make it clear that other than this, a dealer must havea license and a person who has not renewed his licensewithout justifiable cause, cannot get any benefit.

(5) As far as proof of turnover is concerned, the primaryevidence is Form ‘M’ and in the absence of form ‘M’,Form ‘H’ and ‘J’. No other document can be taken intoconsideration for proving the turnover.

24. We had asked the counsel for the Board to give us a list ofthe position regarding availability of plots and shops in various Mandis.The list has been filed which shows that even now a large number ofplots are available in the State of Punjab in different Mandis forallotment. As such the Board/Committee should reconsider the caseof those where there are marginal deficiencies, which deficiencyoccurred due to reasons beyond the control of the dealer. Thisreconsideration be done within 3 months.

25. With the above observations all the appeals stand disposedof. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H