Doing Business in Shop and on Auction Platform are Different - Supreme Court

Supreme court recently dismissed appeal (Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors. D.D. 03 March 2023) that doing business in a shop and carrying on business on the auction platform were different and distinct activities. The appellant was to be treated at par and equally with other people doing business in the market and on the auction platform.

The appellant became the owner of Shop No. 27 situated in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh, and respondent No. 5 was the tenant of the said shop. Ejectment proceedings were initiated by the appellant against respondent No. 5, and the order of ejectment was confirmed by the High Court. Respondent No. 5 shifted as a tenant to Shop No. 12 in 2007 and applied for change of address to the new shop, which was rejected. The appellant applied for a license to sell fruits/vegetables, and State Agricultural Marketing Board issued the same.

Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the rejection of his application for change of address to the new Shop No. 12. The High Court stayed the order, and the stay was continued up to 31.03.2009, i.e., till the validity of respondent No. 5's license. The Market Committee, Chandigarh, rejected respondent No. 5's application for renewal of license, which was the subject matter of another writ petition before the High Court. The License Committee 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. The High Court allowed respondent No. 5's writ petition, directing the renewal of his license and holding that he is entitled to use the platform in front of Shop No. 27 until any alternative policy comes by way of amendment in the Act or the Rules, pertaining to the issue of rights to use the platform. The learned Single Judge held that the right to use the platform and to have the license to do business in the market area are distinct and different and are not directly linked.

The appellant preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the right to use the shop and/or having a license and the right to use the platform are not directly related.

The original writ petitioner, who is the license holder and owner of Shop No. 27, and who is also claiming the right to use the platform in front of Shop No. 27, has preferred the appeal, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The appellant claimed the right to a shed or auction platform adjacent to their shop but was unable to establish any specific rules or regulations regarding the allotment of such platforms. The court noted that there were more persons doing business than there were auction platforms available, and that even other persons had been allotted shops and platforms at different places.

The court further observed that the appellant had made a representation to consider whether one platform could be allotted to them, which had been rejected by the Committee by a detailed order that was self-explanatory. The guidelines issued by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding the allotment of auction platforms were followed in making the allotments. Thus, the appellant was not entitled to any preferential treatment or allotment that did not observe the principles and guidelines issued by the Secretary.

The court observed that doing business in a shop and carrying on business on the auction platform were different and distinct activities. The appellant was to be treated at par and equally with other persons doing business in the market and on the auction platform. The court found that the appellant was not entitled to any preferential treatment or allotment that did not observe the principles and guidelines issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court dismissed the appeal, as well as the writ petition and appeal, finding no merit in the present appeals and dismissing them without any costs.

Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors.