2007 (5) TMI 597 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the shops, godowns or sheds be transferred to the writ petitioners on hire-purchase basis? Whether the respondents concerned not to interfere, in any manner, on the possession of the petitioners shops and godowns allotted to the writ petitioners?

Issues Involved:
1. Allotment of shops/godowns on hire-purchase basis.
2. Interference with possession of shops/godowns.
3. Compulsion to enter into rental agreements.
4. Availability of alternative remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allotment of Shops/Godowns on Hire-Purchase Basis:
The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to allot shops/godowns on a hire-purchase basis. They argued that they were initially assured that these premises would be given on a hire-purchase basis, evidenced by a letter from the Director, Mandi Parishad, in 1995. However, the respondents contended that no such policy was ever adopted by the Mandi Parishad, and the Director lacked the authority to make such promises. The Supreme Court noted that the proviso to Section 12 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, requires the Mandi Samiti to obtain prior written approval from the Board for transferring any immovable property. The Court found no evidence of such approval or any decision by the Board to transfer property on a hire-purchase basis. Thus, the appellants had no legal right to claim the property on such terms.

2. Interference with Possession of Shops/Godowns:
The appellants sought an order to prevent interference with their possession of the shops and godowns. The respondents argued that the appellants were allotted these premises on a rental basis and were required to enter into lease agreements. The Supreme Court held that the appellants had no legal right to demand ownership on a hire-purchase basis, and thus, the respondents' actions to formalize rental agreements were within their rights. The Court emphasized that policy decisions regarding property allotment are within the purview of the Mandi Samiti and Mandi Parishad, and not subject to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide.

3. Compulsion to Enter into Rental Agreements:
The appellants objected to being compelled to enter into rental agreements, arguing that they were under the impression that the premises would eventually be transferred to them on a hire-purchase basis. The Supreme Court found no documentary evidence supporting the appellants' claim of any such assurance. The Court reiterated that policy decisions, including the terms of property allotment, are for the Mandi Samiti and Mandi Parishad to decide. The appellants' lack of legal entitlement to a hire-purchase arrangement rendered their objection to rental agreements untenable.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedy:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the appellants had an alternative remedy under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, which allows for filing a revision before the Mandi Parishad. The Supreme Court supported this view, emphasizing that the appellants should have pursued the alternative remedy available to them. The Court also noted that the principles for issuing a writ of mandamus require a clear statutory duty and a corresponding legal right, which were absent in this case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants failed to establish any legal right to demand the transfer of shops/godowns on a hire-purchase basis. The Court upheld the policy decisions of the Mandi Samiti and Mandi Parishad, which were not shown to be arbitrary or mala fide. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of an available alternative remedy and lack of legal entitlement.

← Previous Next →