K. Kannan, J.@mdashThe petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 26.04.2011 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the petition for issuance of licence in the Mandi market. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was already a licensee as Katcha Ahrtiya in the Green Market of Sector-26, Chandigarh. The licence had been issued for a period of three years. The petitioner had renewal valid upto 31.03.2006 but he omitted to apply for a renewal within the time prescribed under the relevant rules. The petitioner had applied for renewal on 15.05.2008 i.e. nearly after two years. The request was rejected on 07.07.2008 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner ordered that no fresh application for grant of licence shall be entertained in Sector-26, Chandigarh due to heavy congestion in the Mandi. This order was challenged in CWP No. 9987 of 2009. This Court passed an order on 13.01.2011 quashing the order passed on 07.07.2008 and directing that the petitioner''s application for renewal shall be considered strictly as per the rules and policies, if any.
2. The petitioner again sought a consideration that the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi must be understood as not allowing for establishing a new shop by a fresh application to ease congestion that already existed in the market and that this ought not to be applied in a case where the petitioner was already having a place in the market and was not seeking for any additional space for his shop to be located. A similar situation arose with reference to M/s Ashok Fruit Agency, who had requested for the grant of licence and after its rejection in writ petition filed in CWP No. 16730 of 2009, this Court had directed the respondents to grant licence after securing an undertaking that the person shall not claim any (additional) allotment of space in the existing Mandi.
3. The petitioner states that he is willing to give such an undertaking that he will not seek for any additional allotment of space and he seeks for his licence only in respect of the shop which is already in his possession as an erstwhile licensee to continue beyond the period of the expiry of the licence. The rules very clearly indicate a time frame within which a renewal licence application has to be made. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied within time. Any application must, therefore, be taken only as an application for fresh license. The policy consideration of not allowing for fresh licenses must be understood as meaning that no additional burden shall be cast in the market which shall increase the congestion. If a person is already running a shop in respect of which licence had already been granted, there is nothing inherently barred under the relevant rules for considering the licence application for grant of fresh licence. The respondents are directed to issue a licence to the petitioner on payment of charges as per the rules on an undertaking given by the petitioner that the licence shall only be in respect of the very shop which he is already in possession of and which he has continued beyond the period of licence and shall not demand additional space in the existing Mandi beyond the area which is already in his occupation. The respondents shall also comply with all the formalities as per the rules.
4. The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
