This judgment shall decide Writ Petitions Nos,7996, 11690 of 2000, 15299, 15362 of 2001 and 19095 of 2000 as common questions are involved.
2. In order to establish a Fruit and Vegetable Market at 'Halizabad the Market Committee commenced taking steps in accordance with provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 and Punjab Agrcultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979. It appears that this process led to a divide between two sets of Commission Agents working in the old market which was to be shifted to the new site. Some of then wanted the market to be established at a site at Motheryanwala By-Pass while the others agreed to the site at Koolu Tarar. It may be stated here that both the sites measured 35 Kanals, 10/12 Marlas.
Ultimately the Provincial Government sanctioned the establishment of the new market at Koolu Tarar vide a Notification dated 6-4-1995. This led to Laing of Writ Petition No,6080 of 1995 by 30 persons. The grievance made out was that arrangements have already been made to purchase of land at the said Motheryanwala site which is much better than the site sanctioned by the Provincial Government some legal objections were also raised. The writ petition was contested. This Court also got the two sites inspected through a Local Commissioner, who reported that the site sanctioned by the Provincial Government is better then the one proposed by the said writ petitioners. After hearing all the parties. the writ petition was dismissed. It was held that the said writ petitioners have no vested right to challenge the establishment of the market by the Provincial Government. Against the said judgment dated 16-1-1996 an I.C.A. was filed which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11-3-1996 C. P. 1439-L of 1996 filed by the said writ petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 4-12-1996. After completion of said round market was established and shops were allotted in accordance with formula laid down in proviso to rule 67 (6)
(c) of the said Rules, 1979.
2 (a) Thereafter the said persons constituted themselves into a Cooperative Society which was registered under the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and thereafter they started the sale and purchase of said agricultural produce in the said site at Motheryanwala. The warrant for to is act is stated to be an order passed by a Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies on 24- 2-2000 whereby the said Society had been permitted to do business. Writ Petition No,7996 of 2000 was filed by Muhammad Anwar, who claims himself to be the President of the said society seeking prohibition against the official responi,ents restraining them from interfering with the business at Motheryanwala Road Hafizabad.
3. Thereafter Writ Petition No,11690 of 2000 was tiled with same contents but prayed that the Provincial Government be directed to accord sanction to the setting up a new market at Motheryanwala Road. It appears that at this stage the said sets of the Writ petitioners i,e, members of the said Cooperative Society had found some support in the official quarter. Feeling aggrieved of issuance of said letter, dated 25-2-2011 issued by the Deputy Registrar. Cooperative Societies Gujranwala Division, which order was being relied upon by the said members of the said Cooperative Society, Writ Petition Rs,19095 of 2000 was filed by one Haji Noor hmad with prayer that the said order be deckared to be without lawful authority being in v elation of the provisions of the said Act and Rules.
4. Thereafter, Rana Muhammad Anwar who had initially led the other group in the course of earlier litigation filed Writ petition No,15299 of 2001. In this writ petition there is reference to an order dated '11-8-2111 of the Administrator of Market Committee Hafizabad, observing that a registered Cooperative Society is not debarre from commencing and carrying out its business in any way and that the Market Committee has no authority to interfere in the business. The grievance being made out in this writ petition is that despite said order, the Administrator is again interfering with the business of t e said persons. Last writ petition to be filed s Writ Petition No,15362 of 2001. This h been filed by the Secretary General of the Association of the Commission Agents working at Market Koolu Tarar Road Hafizabad. In this writ petition prayer made is that steps are being taken to set up a market at Motheryanwala Road in violation of the said law as also earlier judgments of the superior. Courts.
5. Learned counsel representing the said members of the Cooperative Society who wanted to do business at Motheryanwala (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioners) contend that notwithstanding the earlier decision recorded. by the learned Single Judge and learned Division Bench' as also Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners having constituted themselves into a Cooperative Society which stands registered in accordance with law can do business at any place are neither do need a licence nor can they be called upon to do business only in the said market set up by the Market Committee. In support of this argument they relied on proviso to section 6(1) of the said Ordinance. They further drew support from rule 4(3) and rule 8(a) of the said Rules, 1979.
Learned 'Assistant Advocate-General as also learned counsel for the persons who are doing business in the said market set up at.. Koolu Tarar Road under the sanction of Government (hereinafter to be referred as respondents), argue that reliance placed by We learned counsel for the petitioners on the said provisions is wholly misplaced inasmuch as the said provisions stands repealed. They relied upon the judgments of this Court and Supreme Court of Pakistan in support of the contentions that the matter as to the setting up of Market Committee stands resolved. They further contend that out of shops reserved for allotment to the working Commission Agents In the said market, in fact some shops have been allotted to some of the said petitioners and whatever shops are remaining can be allotted to the petitioners in accordance with Rules. They also rely on rule 79 of the said Rules to contend that it is not awful for the petitioners to insist upon carrying their business at Motheryanwala or at any place other than the said market.
6. I have examined the several documents placed on the files of these writ petitions by the parties. I have already narrated history of these cases and circumstances in which the several writ petitions referred to above have been filed. I find that so far as the said provisions of the main Ordinance, 1978 being relied upon by the petitioners i,e, proviso to section 6(1) of the main Ordinance is concerned the same stands omitted by the Punjab Ordinance XXIII of 2001 w,e,f, 3-10-2001. Similarly the said rule 4(3) and rule 8(a) stand deleted w,e,f, 8-10-2001 by virtue of Notification issued by the Governor of Punjab on the said date amending the said Rules, 1979. Thus the very basis of the claim of the petitioners stands knocked out. Notwithstanding the said repeal of the said provisions being relied upon by the petitioners. I find that reliance on the said provisions even otherwise is rather misplaced as, the said provisions in no manner allow the petitioners to set up a market otherwise then in accordance with provisions of the said Ordinance and said Rules. Now whereas section 6(1)
(proviso) exempts the Cooperative Society from payment of licence fee (but not the obligation to obtain a licence itself), the said repealed sub-rule (3) of rule 4 of the said Rules, 1979 allow a Cooperative Society to set up or use any place for the purchase and sale of agricultural produce without obtaining any licence under the Ordinance or Rules made thereunder. Now the said rule 4 does not deal with a market but deals with the declaration of notified market area. A market and a notified market area are two separate concept as would be evident from the definition of the said terms contained in section 2(i) and (k) of the Ordinance. Rule 67 of the said Rules, 1979 deals with the establishment of a new market in a notified market area under this new market can be established only in terms stated in the said rule 67. It may be noted here that earlier rule 67 dealt with establishment of a Feeder Market. The term "new" was added vide Notification No,PD/ VIII-1/ 82, dated 17-4-1985, by means of the same notification rule 79 was added which provides that where a regular market has been established by the Market Committee with the approval of the Government, all transactions of agricultural produce shall be conducted within market premises and not outside the same. Thus upon a reading of said rule 4(3) (before its repeal), rule 67 and rule 79 would clearly show that so long as regular market is not established in notified market area, the Cooperative Society would be at liberty to conduct its business at any place within a notified market area without obtaining any licence under the Ordinance or In Rules made thereunder; But once a regular market is established in terms of rule 67 then by virtue of rule 79 there will be bar upon said Cooperative Society to conduct transactions of agricultural produce at a place outside the market premises. Thus both before and after repeal. of the said provisions the petitioners were not lawfully entitled to do business at a place other then the premises of market.
7. Coming to the question of setting up of market itself I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents, upon an examination of the earlier judgments passed by this Court as also Supreme Court of Pakistan, that the market at Koolu Tarar Road was lawfully set up and it was so held by the superior Courts while dealing with similar contentions. Still the fact remains that as held in the said judgments and as is the meaning and intent of the said law and rules that ultimately it is for the Provincial Government to decide the said question of the requirement for setting up of a market in a notified market area and as is evident from a reading of rule 67 any person desirous of setting up of a market can move the Market Committee concerned and thereafter the procedure and legal requirements are to be followed.
With these observations Writ Petitions Nos,7996, 11690 of 2000 and 15299 of 2001 are dismissed, while Writ Petitions Nos,15362 of 2001 and 19095 of 2000 are allowed. No order as to costs.