Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/S. Balaji Store, represented by proprietor Sri Dinesh Kumar Agrawal; Respondents – State of Jharkhand, Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur, Managing Director of State Agriculture Marketing Board, Secretary of Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) Jamshedpur, and M/S. Narayan Trading Company (respondent No.6).
  • Background: Balaji Store was allotted Godown No. G‑13/B by APMC Jamshedpur through allotment letter No. 173 dated 02‑03‑2015, with an agreement executed on 09‑03‑2015. Possession of the godown was never handed over to the petitioner.
  • Rent Demand: On 13‑08‑2016, the Secretary of APMC issued a letter (No. 1019) demanding Rs. 2,55,000/- as rent up to July 2016, threatening cancellation of the allotment and stoppage of trade if unpaid.
  • Cancellation: The allotment was cancelled by letter No. 1445 dated 27‑10‑2016, purportedly on the basis of a letter dated 20‑10‑2016 allegedly written by the petitioner surrendering the godown. The petitioner claims the 20‑Oct‑2016 letter is forged.
  • Temporary Re‑Allotment: On 24‑11‑2016, the Secretary of APMC allotted the same godown temporarily to M/S. Narayan Trading Company (letter No. 1581).
  • Enquiry Report: An enquiry report dated 09‑01‑2017, submitted by the Bazar Pravechhak (Market Supervisor), concluded that the cancellation was based on the petitioner’s application dated 20‑Oct‑2016.
  • Reliefs Sought: The petitioner sought quashing of (i) the cancellation order (letter No. 1445), (ii) the enquiry report, (iii) the temporary allotment to Narayan Trading Company, (iv) a direction to restore possession of the godown, and (v) the rent demand letter (No. 1019).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the cancellation was effected on the petitioner’s own request and that the authenticity of the 20‑Oct‑2016 letter cannot be adjudicated by a writ petition under Article 226; such a determination requires a detailed trial with forensic examination.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
  • The Court directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil court for any further relief.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Market Allocation