Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Gurjit Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (03 Mar 2023)

By a mere fact that 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



Present appeal is against impugned common judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court confirming 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.

The appellant is claiming shed/auction platform which is just adjacent to or in front of shop No. 27 and/or at any other place. However, the appellant is unable to establish or show any specific rules with respect to the allotment of the shed/auction platform and that too, just adjacent and 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.

The allotments have been made in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Secretary, Agriculture. 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 or guideline supporting such a claim has been brought to the notice of the High Court or even this Court.

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, and in absence of any specific rule in favour of Appellants, right to claim the allotment just in front of his shop or adjacent to the same and 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 petitions and appeals. Appeals dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved