Supreme Court Upholds “One Site One Shop” Policy in Chandigarh Market Dispute: Gurjit Singh vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh (2023) INSC 175 (03 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 175
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a shop owner in a market claim a right to the auction platform directly in front of their shop? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute arising from the Agricultural Produce Market in Chandigarh. The core issue revolved around the allotment of auction platforms to shop owners and whether the principle of “One Site One Shop” should be strictly applied. The Court examined the claims of two competing licensees, one holding a shop and the other claiming a historical right to use the platform. The judgment clarifies the distinction between the right to operate a shop and the right to use an auction platform.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between Gurjit Singh, the appellant, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and other respondents, primarily concerning the allotment of an auction platform in the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh. Gurjit Singh became the owner of Shop No. 27 in the market. Respondent No. 5 was initially a tenant in Shop No. 27, but was later evicted. Subsequently, Respondent No. 5 moved to Shop No. 12. Gurjit Singh obtained a license to sell fruits and vegetables and began operating from Shop No. 27.

Respondent No. 5, after moving to Shop No. 12, applied for a change of address on his license, which was rejected. He was asked to surrender his old license and apply for a new one. This led to a series of legal challenges regarding the right to operate in the market and the use of the auction platform. The Market Committee later decided to allot sites based on the “One Site One Shop” policy, and Respondent No. 5 was listed as a co-allottee with Gurjit Singh for the platform in front of Shop No. 27.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially stayed the order rejecting Respondent No. 5’s application for a change of address. Subsequently, the Market Committee rejected Respondent No. 5’s application for renewal of his license, which was also challenged in the High Court. The High Court allowed Respondent No. 5’s writ petition, directing that his license be renewed and that he was entitled to use the platform in front of Shop No. 27 until a new policy was formulated. The High Court held that the right to use the platform and the right to have a license are distinct and not directly linked.

The appellant, Gurjit Singh, then filed a writ petition challenging the co-allotment of the platform to Respondent No. 5. The High Court dismissed this petition, and the Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed the letters patent appeals, confirming the Single Judge’s view that the right to use the shop and the right to use the platform are not directly related. The Division Bench also noted that Respondent No. 5 had been using the platform since 1970, prior to Gurjit Singh obtaining his license, and therefore had a prior claim.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the “Licensing of Auction Platform Rules, 1981” under which a Licence Committee was constituted. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of the “One Site One Shop” policy adopted by the Market Committee. The court also considered the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, U.T. Chandigarh, regarding the allotment of sheds/spaces after their collapse in 2007.

The court noted that there were no specific rules or regulations that mandated the allotment of an auction platform to a shop owner directly in front of their shop. The court also highlighted that the right to carry on business in a shop and the right to carry on business on the auction platform are distinct and separate.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Gurjit Singh)

• The appellant was granted a license in 2007, while Respondent No. 5 obtained a fresh license in 2010. Therefore, the appellant should have priority based on seniority.
• Respondent No. 5 submitted an affidavit in 2009 stating that he would not claim any right over the auction platform, and his license was issued after this affidavit.
• The High Court erred in holding that business in the shop and on the auction platform are distinct. The right to use a site on the platform is connected with the right to use the corresponding shop, as per the “One Site One Shop” policy.
• Since the appellant has a license and owns Shop No. 27, he is entitled to the allotment of the auction platform in front of his shop.
• Respondent No. 5 is doing business in Shop No. 12, so allotting him the auction platform in front of Shop No. 27 is unreasonable.
• The appellant should not be in a worse position than before filing the writ petition challenging the co-allotment of the site to Respondent No. 5.

Respondent’s Arguments (Chandigarh Market Committee)

• The allotment of the auction platform is made as per policy, and there is no rule that a license holder is entitled to carry on business on the platform in front of their shop.
• Respondent No. 5 has been doing business since 1970 and was allotted the platform in front of Shop No. 27.
• A license holder cannot claim allotment of a platform at a specific place as a matter of right.
• The Market Committee’s actions are in line with the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, which prioritize those who were allotted sheds before the collapse in 2007.
• The appellant was issued a license after the sheds collapsed and therefore does not fall under the policy for preferential allotment.

Respondent’s Arguments (Respondent No. 5)

• Respondent No. 5 was carrying on business on the platform even before the collapse of the shed in 2007 and has held a valid license since 1970.
• Although his license was not valid at the time of allotment of new sheds due to non-renewal, his case for a new license was pending and was granted in February 2010.
• The allotment of the shed to Respondent No. 5 was justified as he was a licensee of the Committee and a possession holder of the shed prior to its collapse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a dedicated section. However, the core issue revolved around the following:

1. Whether the appellant, holding a license and owning Shop No. 27, was entitled to the allotment of the auction platform adjacent to his shop.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the right to use the shop and the right to use the platform are distinct and not directly related.
3. Whether the allotment of the auction platform to Respondent No. 5 was justified, considering his historical use and license status.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in the judgment. The judgment primarily relied on the facts of the case, the existing policies, and guidelines issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, U.T. Chandigarh.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the High Court’s decisions. The Court held that the appellant could not establish any specific right to claim the auction platform adjacent to his shop. The Court emphasized that the right to do business in a shop and the right to use an auction platform are distinct.

“The Court observed that in the absence of any specific right in his favour, the appellant could not have prayed for the allotment of shed/auction platform just adjacent to and/or in front of his shop No. 27.”

“The Court further observed that to do business in the shop and to carry on business on the auction platform, are both different and distinct. Merely because a person is having a licence and doing business in a particular shop, he is not entitled to the auction platform as a matter of right and that too, in front of and/or adjacent to his shop.”

“The Court also noted that the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 is made as per the policy and guidelines, and therefore, both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have rightly held against the appellant and have rightly dismissed the writ petition(s) and appeal(s).”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the absence of any specific rule or regulation that mandated the allotment of an auction platform to a shop owner directly in front of their shop. The Court emphasized that the right to operate a shop and the right to use an auction platform are distinct. The Court also gave weight to the fact that Respondent No. 5 had been conducting business on the platform since 1970, which was much prior to the appellant’s license.

Key Takeaways

• The right to operate a shop in a market and the right to use an auction platform are distinct and separate rights.
• Shop owners cannot automatically claim a right to the auction platform directly in front of their shops.
• Allotment of auction platforms is governed by specific rules and policies, and historical use and prior possession may be considered.
• The “One Site One Shop” policy does not automatically mean that a shop owner is entitled to the platform directly in front of their shop.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to operate a shop and the right to use an auction platform are distinct, and no shop owner has an automatic right to the platform in front of their shop. This clarifies the application of the “One Site One Shop” policy, emphasizing that it does not guarantee a platform adjacent to the shop. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to specific rules and policies in the allotment of public spaces and highlights that historical use and prior possession can be relevant factors. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court affirmed that the right to operate a shop and the right to use an auction platform are distinct and that the appellant had no specific right to claim the platform adjacent to his shop. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to established policies and guidelines in the allotment of public spaces and clarifies that the “One Site One Shop” policy does not guarantee a platform adjacent to every shop.