The petitioners who are Commission Agents in Fruit and Vegetable Market, Hafizabad have filed the present petition assailing order dated 6-4-1995 passed by respondent No. l whereby sanction/approval was accorded to the establishment of a new fruit and vegetable market at Kohloo Tarar Road on a piece of land admeasuring 35 Kanals 10 Marlas belonging to Syed Mubbashir Hasnain etc. Bearing Khasras Nos. 390, 391, 394 to 398 situated in the revenue estate of Hafizabad under the provisions of Rule 67 of the Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules, 1979.
2. The petitioner, alleged that they had proposed another land admeasuring 35 Kanals 12 Marlas situated on bypass Mundrianwala and had in fact entered into an agreement to sell with the owners on 30-3-1995 and that the then Deputy Commissioner had inspected the spot and agreed with the proposal of "Anjuman-e-Arhtian" to establish new vegetable and fruit market at the said site but after the said Deputy Commissioner under the influence of political personage agreed to the proposal of the establishment of new fruit and vegetable market over the land belonging to Syed Mubbashir Hasnain etc. And that the establishment of the market at the sanctioned site was not in public interest for the reasons mentioned therein and to support the said contentions affidavits of different persons and a certificate allegedly obtained from Medical Superintendent, D.H.Q. Hospital was also annexed to the petitioner.
3. In the parwarise comments the allegations as made in the petition were denied and it was asserted that the site was selected by publication of public notice in the newspapers. According to the respondents the site selected by market committee, recommended by the Deputy Commissioner and approved by the Provincial Government was the best suited for the establishment of the fruit and vegetable market. Alongwith reply photo copy of the notice got published by Administrator of the Market Committee, Hafizabad was annexed and so was annexed the offer of the land approved by the Government for the establishment of the market by its owners on 22-2-1995. From the annexures enclosed with the reply agreement between Syedeen Akhtar s/o Akhtar Sibtain and Administrator, Market Committee was executed and recommendation to the Deputy Commissioner was made by the Assistant Director (E&M), Gujranwala vide his letter dated 13-3-1995 .Who had requested that the same may be forwarded to Director, Agricultural (E&M), Punjab, Lahore for onward transmission to the Government of the Punjab, Agricultural Department, for approval in accordance with Rule 67 of Rules referred supra.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also given my anxious consideration to the points involved. I have also appointed Mr. Muhammad Aslam Malik, Advocate as Local Commission who made his report in the following terms:-- "Both the sites are at about equal distance from the centre of the city, the shopkeepers will have to incur equal fare. The site proposed by the Market Committee is almost of the level of the surrounding land and to the road, whereas the site proposed by the petitioners is much lower about 7/8 feet than the road. There is already constructed drain at the Kohloo Tarar Road, the petitioner's site is having no drain for flow of water from the proposed Mandi. It is surrounded by land to be utilized for construction and having no vegetable fields.
Though the writ petitioners filed objection petition to the same but the same is not worth a nod in view of the legal position.
5. The President Anjuman-e-Arhtian was consulted and he had agreed to the proposal of establishment of new market at the proposed site. He was issued notice by Muhammad Anwar and Abdul Ghaffar etc., a few of the petitioners, and in reply to the same the President had asserted that the site was in the best public interest and the contents of the notice were defamatory. The petitioners had also enclosed with the petition the affidavits of many of the residents of Hafizabad.
6. Point to be considered in the present case was as to who was the authority to determine the best location for establishment of the market and whether Arhtian (Commission Agents) had any veto in this behalf.
7. The requirements for establishment of the market as given in Rule 67 of the Rules supra were fulfilled and the Government, after considering the reports/comments/remarks approved establishment of the market vide impugned order which was final. The same could only be challenged in case the conditions as mentioned in sub-rule (6) were not fulfilled. In the present case the petitioners have not been able to show that the requirements of sub-rule 6(a) and (b) were not fulfilled and that the agreement with the owner of the land was not executed in accordance with the terms and conditions as entitled therein. As establishment of the market was the prerogative of the Government, the petitioner's locus to challenge the same in the given circumstances is to be seen. The question whether there was any vested right in the Commission Agents/Licence Holders to challenge such establishment or to insist for carrying on their business in the old market was examined by their lordships in the Supreme Court in "Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and 3 others v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1994 SCM R 1048). In para. 11 of the judgments their lordships considered the observations recorded in para. 29 of the judgment in "Nabi Ahmad v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan" (PLD 1969 SC 599) and the conclusion drawn by their lordships is reproduced as under:-- "11. The vested right of the respondents is in obtaining licence. They have not been asked to close down their business completely, but an alternate accommodation is provided to them. They have not permanent interest to do business in the old market. A market can be removed from one place to another to promote the public interest, safety and welfare. A statutory market created under the Ordinance enjoys protection against any other place of business. Imposing the condition of licence is not unconstitutional. There is no interference with any right of the respondents. A licence does not confer a vested or absolute right. "
As observed by their lordships in the case referred supra a market can be removed from one place to another to promote the public interest, safety and welfare. In the present case the competent authority had looked into the question of public interest, safety and welfare and the agreement with land owners was executed by the market committee with the consent of the President, Anjuman-e-Arhtian. A few of the members of the Anjuman had entered into an "agreement to sell" with Aman Ullah Khan. The same had no statutory sanction as the agreement was to be executed in favour of the market committee and in View of the same the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order on the basis of agreement which was not executed with the market committee.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000.