CW 2687/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No. 2687/2008 M/s Hanuman Bux Ramesh Chand Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 27/03/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Arisal Singh Nathawat, for petitioner Mr. KS Chandel, Dy.Govt.Counsel, for respondent-State Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for respondent No.2 & 3 . Matter has come up on application seeking interim relief. At request, matter was finally heard and is being disposed of at admission stage. Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that petitioner-Firm was at one point of time allotted shop G-13, Grain Mandi, Surajpol Extension on the terms & conditions referred to in allotment letter dt.18/06/92 (Ann.2). Counsel for petitioner submits that others similarly situated grain traders were later on shifted to Kukar Khera Sub-Yard of Grain Market, Sikar Road, Jaipur; and respondents have adopted different standards in not taking note of request of petitioner-Firm who too was one of dealers alongwith others having been allotted shop in Grain Mandi Surajpol, Jaipur. It has not been disputed by Counsel for petitioner-Firm that the petitioner was allotted a shop in Surajpol Mandi long back the year 1992-93 CW 2687/08 //2// and after a lapse of 16 years whereof, legal notice was served that petitioner Firm may also be considered for allotment of shop in KukarKhera Sub-Yard Jaipur while having been apprised from news papers for shifting of similar situated Traders from Surajpol to KukarKhera Sub-yard Jaipur under orders of High Court. After notices were served upon respondents reply has been filed. Apart from delay in filing instant petition, Counsel for respondents submits that there was a series of litigation having taken place and as regard allotment of shop in Kukar Khera Sub-yard, Jaipur, Division Bench of this Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s Ashoka Oil Industries, (Special Appeal (Writ)-519/08 & bunch of Special appeals decided on 09/09/2008 (2009(1) WLC(Raj.) p.94) has finally directed the authorities to make allotment of remaining available plots/shops; as per the direction referred to therein and therefore, petitioners' application at such belated stage cannot be considered in contravention of direction of this Court. Counsel for respondents further submits that one M/s Milkvita Dairy Products who too was allotted shop in Surajpole yard in the year 1989 prior to petitioner, with the same grievance CW 2687/08 //3// seeking shifting to KukarKhera sub-Yard, preferred CWP-1988/2005 but it was dismissed vide order dt. 17/10/06 – against which Special Appeal (W)- 829/2007 was preferred before Division Bench but was dismissed vide order dt.21/02/2008. No such facts have been disclosed by petitioner Firm as to who were those allottees being similarly situated like petitioner and to whom & in what circumstances, they were shifted to KukarKhera Sub-yard from Surajpole main Yard, Jaipur at a later point of time and how action of respondents in any manner can be said to be in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Even in instant case, after allotment was made to petitioner on 18/06/92 (Ann.2), there is nothing on record that he had ever protested of allotment made in Surajpol Mandi Yard and is not running its business or no other allottee is running shop in Surajpol Yard after such allotments having been made. However, the Division Bench examined and settled the issue with regard to remaining plots at Kukarkhera sub-yard, vide judgment dt.09/09/2008 in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s Ashoka Oil Indus. (supra) ad infra: “30. We have seriously thought over the claims and counter claims of the appellants and the respondents. Dismissal or allowing the appeal will CW 2687/08 //4// not solve the problem of either of the parties. A solution has to be found out. To resolve this controversy, we dispose of these appeals in following terms: (i) The appellants shall advertise remaining plots providing opportunity to all the Traders and Brokers doing their business in Sub-Market Yards and the market Area. (ii) We grant an opportunity to the appellants to allot plots in second phase after advertising these plots with other plots, if carved out for allotment, in accordance with the policy framed by the appellants. (iii) In case the appellants decide to allot these 36 plots as per their necessity without waiting for advertising the plots earmarked for the second phase, the appellants are directed to advertise and allot the same within reasonable time according to the policy.” In view of direction of Division Bench (supra), petitioner can also be considered in terms whereof but not on the basis of fact that at one point of time, the Firm was allottee of shop in Surajpol yard on the basis of priority of its allotment. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed alongwith application for interim relief. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/2687CW08Mar27.doc