1 75 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6656/2007 (Ajay Dak Vs. RIICO & Ors.) Date of Order :: 20th April 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Tarun Joshi,for the petitioner. Mr.Lokesh Mathur for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT Though this matter has been placed on Board along with CWP No.5344/2008 for orders that has been ordered to be placed for admission on the future date, however, it is noticed that herein show cause notices were issued on 10.10.2007 and learned counsel is appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the other petitions involving similar and akin issues including CWP Nos.6661/2007,6655/2007, 6657/2007 and 6805/2007 have already been decided by this Court and have placed for perusal a copy of the order dated 03.04.2008 as passed in those writ petitions. In view of the submissions made and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this matter is 2 taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.03.2007 (Annex.4) informing the petitioner that the Management has not considered his application for allotment of plot in I.T. Park, MIA (Extn.), Udaipur and the amount deposited has been ordered to be refunded; and it is contended that the rejection of the application is not proper when the petitioner moved pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents and deposited the amount with them. While deciding the batch of the aforesaid writ petitions led by Writ Petition No.6661/2007, this Court has observed and ordered,- “I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that though the order of allotment has not been passed in favour of the petitioner, yet they have submitted application pursuant to the call given by the respondents and deposited the required amount which were then accepted by the respondents. In view of the Rule 27 of the Rules, the respondents have a right to revoke the proposal for allotment etc. but then it is expected from the RIICO to be reasonable in those matters. The outcome of the aforesaid conclusion is not that, though respondents can revoke their proposal for allotment but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where application was invited by the respondents themselves, an amount was also accepted. It was expected from the RIICO to take a reasonable view in the matter and if at all the cancellation of the application of the petitioner was justified on a given 3 point of time, then looking to the offer made by the petitioner during the course of argument, the RIICO may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically after taking note of the fact that they had submitted application pursuant to the call given by the RIICO and also deposited the sum so demanded which were then retained by the RIICO itself. It is otherwise given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if reasonable enhanced amount is to be charged by the RIICO over and above the amount originally determined, the petitioners are ready to pay the same. Looking to these reasons coupled with the reasons given in the judgment referred to above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically after taking note of the observations in this judgment and for that purpose, RIICO may call the petitioners for negotiation on all the issues and if the matter can be settled, endeavour should be made to settled the issue. Since petitioners are ready to pay higher amount, this aspect would also be taken into consideration by the respondents and otherwise during pendency of the writ petition, RIICO has not even issued advertisement for calling the application for allotment of land in dispute. Necessary exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of two months. If the matter is not finally settled between the parties even after passing the necessary observations herein, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition. “ In view of the order so passed in the akin matters and for the submissions made before the Court, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered that the respondent RIICO may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and may call him for the negotiation; and an endeavour should be made to settle the matter and if the petitioner is ready to pay the higher amount, such aspect would also be taken into 4 consideration by the respondents. Necessary exercise may be completed as expeditiously as possible. If the matter is yet not finally settled between the parties, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a petition afresh. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.03.2007 is treated redundant and, to put the record straight, is annulled leaving the parties to proceed with the matter with reference to the observations forgoing. This petition is allowed to the extent indicated, and observations made, above. No cost. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni