Possession Of License To Do Business In Shop Does Not Entitle Party To Allotment Of Auction Platform As Matter Of Right: Supreme Court

“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”, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna highlighted.

The appellant became the owner of Shop No. 27 situated in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh. Respondent No. 5 was the tenant of the shop. Both the parties were holding the requisite licences to do business in the market area. It so happened that ejectment proceedings against respondent No. 5 were confirmed by the High Court. The latter then shifted to Shop No. 12 in the year 2007 and applied for change of address to the new shop. It, however was rejected and he was asked to surrender his licence and apply for new one.

In the meanwhile, a fresh license was issued to the appellant, who started running the business from Shop No. 27 owned by him. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order which rejected his application for change of address. The order was stayed which continued till the validity of licence of respondent No. 5 came to an end. Respondent No. 5’s application for license renewal was rejected again.

After the High Court’s interference, respondent No. 5 continued to function as per the old licence. 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 co¬allottee along with the appellant.

After a plea was moved, the High Court 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 alternative policy comes by way of amendment in the Act or the Rules, pertaining to the issue of rights to use the auction platform.

The Court 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.

The Division bench of the High Court confirmed the order when an appeal was moved.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it opined that though the appellant is claiming shed/auction platform just adjacent to shop No. 27, he was unable to establish and/or show any specific rules and/or regulations in that regard.

“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.”

After the shed collapsed in 2007, the allotments have been made in accordance with the Secretary, Agriculture’s guidelines, the Court noted.

“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.”

On the allotment of the auction platform in favour of respondent No. 5, the Court noted that he has been holding the licence and doing business since 1970, whereas the appellant got the licence in 2007. It also observed that issues pertaining to after the collapse were considered by the Market Committee while deciding the representation.

On these grounds, the Bench rejected the appeals.

Case Title: Gurjit Singh (D) Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. | Civil Appeal Nos. 4826¬4828 Of 2022