1 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4075/2010. Jaswant Singh. vs. State of Raj. and others. 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4409/2010. Data Ram. vs. State of Raj. and others. Date : 14.5.2010 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.DS Dev, for the petitioners. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Both these writ petitions are decided by this common order in view of the same plea taken by both the petitioners in these writ petitions. The facts of SBCWP No.4075/2010 will be sufficient guidance for other cases for deciding the legal issue. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19.3.2010 by which the revision petition was allowed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar and the allotment of the shops made in favour of the petitioner and other persons was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the allotment order was appealable and in exceptional circumstances, it could have 2 been challenged by way of revision. It is submitted that in the case of Chiranji Lal vs. Addl. Collector III, Jaipur & Ors. Reported in 2002(4) RLW 2284, such order passed in revision has been set aside by this Court. It is also submitted that the procedure was not followed by learned Additional Collector before passing the order and he did not examine the record and passed the order mechanically. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the case as well as the documents placed on record. Even according to learned counsel for the petitioner, there were total 7 shops available for allotment whereas it appears from the impugned order that there were total 10 shops, out of which 5 shops were allotted to one Sultan Ram and his family members. Shops no.6, 7 and 8 were allotted to the mother of the secretary. Shops no.9 and 10 were allotted to Jaswant Singh and Data Ram. Learned Addl. Collector found that the procedure for auction of the shops was not followed and shops have been given to the family members of one person and to the mother of the Secretary. In view of the above facts, it was certainly an exceptional case where revisional power could have been exercised and the judgment of Chiranji Lal 3 (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. In view of the above finding of fact recorded by the learned Additional Collector, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, both these writ petitions are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya