JUDGMENTIHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J.- It is proposed to. Decide Writ Petitions Nos. 28482/1997, 8254/1999, 16124/1998 and 9103/1999 as the factual and legal controversy is the same.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this protracted litigation are that respondent No. 2 decided to establish new Fruit and Vegetable Market at Naushehra Sansi Bypass Scheme, Gujranwala and proceeded to acquire-hind measuring 93 Kanals and 6 Marlas vide Notification dated 20.4.1981 and 28.4.1982. The then Administrator of the Market Committee entered into an agreement dated 13.4'
1981 with the Commission Agents of the two markets already operating in Gujranwala. It was agreed that the allotment will be made to the applicants only with the consent of their associations. The applications were invited and the applicants were required to deposit Rs.5000/- as security. Punjab Agriculture Department constituted the Allotment Committee vide Memo, dated 16.11.1981. The Committee consisted of the Administrator, Market Committee, Gujranwala, Assistant Commissioner.'
Gujranwala, representatives each of District Council, Gujranwala and Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala and two representative one each from Fruit and vegetable Commission Agents Association and Extra Assistant Directors (E and M), Gujranwala. The Committee refused to entertain some applications. The applicants filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner as Appellate Authority. The appeal was accepted vide order dated 28.1.1982. The Appellate Authority also directed the. Constitution of new Allotment Committee. The matter remained in cold storage for almost for years and ultimately Punjab Agriculture Department vide Notification dated 18.12.1985 constituted Allotment Committee. Thefunctions of the Committee were:-'
(i) enlistment of the Commission Agents engaged in fruit and vegetable business at existing. Fruit and. Vegetable Markets at Gujranwala;
(ii) aHotment/auction of plots in new Market; and.
(iii) execution of development works in the new market and supervision thereof.
Thereafter two names were added in the Committee vide Memo, dated 2nd January, 1986. The Deputy Commissioned, Gujranwala nominated the Assistant Commissioner as his nominee. The Committee, so constituted, decided that only those applicants, who have deposited security upto 27th April, 1981, would be considered tor the allotment of the plots in the new .Market. The Committee in its meeting dated 4th June, 1986 allotted 171 plots while 5 were reserved tor office an utility services. The allotments were challenged by some persons through an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 3rd July, 1986 as incompetent. However, the revision was accepted by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 13th April, 1987 and the case was remanded for fresh decision by the-A.C., who again dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12th December, 1987. The Commissioner once again accepted the revision and this time, proceeded to set aside the allotments and proceedings of Allotment Committee. This -Order was assailed through Constitutional Petition No. 2518 of' 1989, which was dismissed vide judgment announced on 31st July, 1990. Subject to the -observations made in para 23 Of the judgment. The main directions were as under:-
(i) the Deputy Commissioner was advised to nominate Officer other than Assistant Commis-sioner concerned, who was designated as Appellate Authority;
(ii) The Commits e constituted was to proceed according to prescribed terms of the reference to enlist the Commission ' Agents who were divided into categories A&B;
(iii) Category A was to have preference in the matter of allotment of the shops/sites;
(iv) the allotment to the Growers was to.Be made against reserved quota in accordance with law; and(v) the shops/sites b earning available after the allotment to the Commission AgentS-ot' category. A and to the Growers may he allotted to Commission Agents of category B.
The Allotment Committee in accordance with the above,, directions proceeded to have a detailed survey and in its meeting held on '30.8.1990 made allotments. The minutes of the meeting dated 30.8.1990 have been placed on record. The petitioners, who remained un-successful have filed the following writ petitions.
W.P. No. 28.482/1997
3. Muhammad' Sadiq, petitioner, contended that he vast in possession of the shop in the old market since 1978 and transacting the business there, therefore, he was covered by category 'A' but has been wrongly and illegally deprived of the allotment.
4.. Qn the other hand; Mr . M.A Zufar. Advocate for the Administrator Market Committee argued that the petitioner did not have any licence for the period from lst January, 1981 to 31st December, 1997.
The same was renewed on 28th August, 1997 as was clear- from gorm-K, placed on record as Annex-R/1, It was added that in even Eorm-B, appended as Annexure-A with the petition, no valid licence was issued in favour of the petitioner for. This period as is evident from entry in. Column No. 6 thereof. It was argued that all the documents relied pertained to the year 1992 and thereafter, 'therefore, the same were not relevant for determination of entitlement for allotmeflt It was argued that the Allotment Committee was broad based and represented by all concerned departments and associations of the traders. They have made their recommendation after detailed inquiry.
W.P. No. 16124/1998 5, This petition is again by Muhammad Sadiq. It was argued that the allotment' was not made in accordance with the judgment dated 31st July, 1990. It was added that the auction has not been held as required under Rule 7 of the Agricultural Products Rules and the plots meant for growers were allotted to non-agriculturists and non-residents of the District Gujranwala It was addecHhat the petitioner was licence holder since 1978. He made-application for allotment in 1981. He was continuously in business as was clear from the receipts etc. Placed on record, It was argued that once his licence was renewed, the same'would be deemed to be a value throughout the period.-
6. 0n the other hand, it was pointed out that 70% plots" were reserved for the Commission Agents while the 30% were reserved for the Growers. The Committee had made the allotment strictly in accordance with .The guide-line contained in judgment of High Court dated 31st July, 1990. It was argued that whether the petitioner was running the business or not is a question of fact and the same had been decided by the Committee on the basis of documents available to it and as a result of their door to door survey. The subsequent renewal of licence did not make him legible for the allotment of the plot,W.P. Nos. 9103/1999 and8245/1999.
7. Mian Hamid Farooq, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners argued 'that the petitioners were transacting the business of Commission Agents under licences issued by the Committee, therefore, they were entitled to allotment. It was argued that earlier in W.P. No, 29743/1997, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala made statement that the petitioners would be allotted alternate accommodation in the extended market and then' they will not be disturbed. It was submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if the same order is repeated in these petitions.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghazi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 8254/1999 argued that 14 of the petitioners have more than one firm and they, have already been one allotted sites, therefore, disentitled to second allotment. It was added that the Allotment Committee formulated its recommendation in the Resolution dated 30th August, 1990 while the Writ petition was filed in* 1999, therefore, the same suffered from gross laches. They were not aggrieved persons. It is why no appeal was filed by them against the decision of the Committee. It was added that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of facts, therefore, not entitled to any relief in Constitutional jurisdiction! In this behalf reliance is placed on Raza Khan Vs. Vice-Chancellor, N.W.F.P., University of Engineerit, and Technology, Peshawar {\9%2 SCMR 560).
9. Mr. Fouzi Zafar, Assistant A.G added that the writ petition is not competent as the petitioners, have no vested right to claim allotment. In this behalf reliance is placed-on Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and others Ks. Muhammad Sharif and others (1994 SCM R 1048). D.C. Has authority to give such an undertaking.
10. Mian Shahid Iqbal, Assistant A.G. For respondents in W.P. No. 9103/1999 argued that the Certificate of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in W.P. No. 9103/1999 appended as Annex-A is bogus and fabricated document. In this behalf he has referred to the copy of Register-K placed on the file with the comments to show that the petitioner, Sheikh Rafique, was granted licence for the first time on 29.5.1995. It was added that the entry has been made in the relevant register subsequently and that is why it is in different hand writing and not countersigned by the Administrator like other entries. It was argued that this conduct atone is sufficient to dismiss the petition. It was added that all the receipts relied were not relevant. The petitioners have waived their right, if any, by not filing the appeal. It was maintained that the Deputy Commissioner had nothing to do with the allotment, which was to be made by the Committee as per law and decision of this Court, therefore, the undertaking of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be made basis.
41. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and gone through the record. I would like first to deal with the last mentioned Writ Petitions. The documents made basis of their claim by the petitioners have been challenged as bogus, forged and fabricated, therefore, this fact cannot be determined in Constitutional jurisdiction. Moreover, it is clear from the claim made by the petitioners that they did not apply for the allotment. They requested permission to continue their business at the old premises until and unless they were accommodated in the extended market is not that harmless as it was prayed and argued. The prayer if granted would frustrate the very purpose of establishment of New Vegetable and Fruit Market. Above all the respondents have contested these petitions and not conceded as was the case in earlier Writ Petition. The petitions are without any merit, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
12. Now coming to the other petitions. The controversy between the parties boils down to the question whether the petitioner held a valid licence and was transacting business in the old market at the cut off date or not. The Allotment Committee consisted of both official and non-officials members. This'was broad based Committee, which included at least two members of the Association of the Commission Agents. It was clear from the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 30.8.1990 that it formulated its recommendation after door to door survey. The- licence admittedly was renewed for the period from 198Mo 1997 on 28.8.1997 (Annex:R.l) measuring thereby that the petitioner did not have a valid- licence in August, 1990. The argument that once the licence was renewed in 1997 then the same would be treated valid throughout this period is without any merit because the Committee was to see the licence while scrutinizing the claim of the petitioner in August, 1990 before the formulation of its recommendation. The subsequent renewal is therefore of. No use as for entitlement for allotment was concerned. Moreover, whether the petitioner was entitled to allotment or not was a factual controversy, which'has been set at rest by the findings of the Allotment Committee. The large number of documents placed on record are not per se admissible by a simple reference to these documents. There are also allegations that the documents are forged and fabricated. On the top- of this the respondents have categorically maintained, that the quota of the Commission Agents have since been exhausted and no plot is available. Mr. Nazir Ghazi, Advocate, in support of his argument has placed on record the comparative table, Anhexure R/I, therefore, again there was a factual controversy whether of not the petitioner in W.P. No. 8254/1999 had obtained any. Allotment earlier? The fact that there petitioners did not file appeal would heavily weigh against them. The Writ Petition also suffered from gross laches.
13. The upshot of this discussion is that there is no merit in these writ petitions. The same are dismissed.