According to the writ petition. for the purpose of setting up a market in accordance with provisions of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1978 read with Rules framed thereunder the petitioners alongwith 13 others contributed a sum of Rs,40.00,000 for acquisition of land: that in the existing market there were 53 shops and it was decided that each shop would mean 3 members and consequently 159 shops were to be allotted to the said 53 persons. The precise case of the petitioners is that each one of them was entitled for allotment of three shops. Respondent No,1 on the other hand in his written statement has explained that 95 Working Commission Agents mentioned in the list Annexure R/1 collectively paid Rs,40,00,000 towards part of the price of the land for construction of market. It has been vehemently denied that each of the Commission Agent was to get three shops each.
2. S.M. Masood, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the original market there were only 53 shops. This was evacuee property and was transferred, inter alia, to the petitioners and other 13 persons. Refers to the figure 160 which is number of the shop to be allotted, to urge that this particular numbers shops was made available to implement the agreement whereby each shop owner was to be given 3 shops. Mian Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the other hand contends that there was no such agreement. According to him there were 95 persons mentioned in the list R/1 who paid the amount. Mr. M. A. Zafar, Advocate, for Market Committee explains that initially there were 200 shops which have been increased to 280 and out of this 80% reserved for allotment to Working Commission Agents and 20% to be disposed of by auction.
3. I have gone through the several documents placed on record of this writ petition. I called upon learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate with reference to any material on record that his clients had paid the said Rs,40,00,000 he is unable to do so. On the other hand under consultation with one of his client present in Court states that the amount was deposited in the manner and by persons as stated by Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate. Also admits each one of the petitioner was allotted one shop. In this state of affairs when there is no material on record to support the said basic plea taken by the petitioners, hardly a case is made out for interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.