IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER M/s.Chandra Prakash Om Prakash Vs. State of Raj. & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.3155/2003) S.B. Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: January 13, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Nitin Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl.G.A. for the State. BY THE COURT: The entire controversy, in the present matter, revolves around the charging of lease-money from the petitioner by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kota, respondent No.3 before this court. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order dated 14-5-1997, Government of Rajasthan had directed that lease-money should be charged on the same pattern as the RIICO pattern and the said amount should be charged on the basis of reserve price. However, despite existence of order dated 14-5-1997, the respondent No.3 is charging more money than necessary. Although, the money should be charged taking the reserve price of the land as Rs.80/- per sq. ft., but, the respondent No.3 is treating the reserve price of the land as Rs.350/- per sq. ft. Moreover, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nitin Jain, identical issues were raised in large number of writ petitions, namely SBCWP No.3109/2003 (M/s.Maheshwari & Co. Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 6-5-2004 and SBCWP No.969/2001. In the case of M/s. Maheshwari & Co., this court, vide order dated 6-5-2004, had directed the concerned Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to consider the case of petitioner in accordance with the order dated 14-5-1997. The said judgment was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court. However, vide judgment dated 24-9- 2004, the Division Bench had dismissed the appeal. Therefore, according to learned counsel the judgment dated 6-5-2004 has achieved finality. Undoubtedly, the controversy of the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment pronounced in M/s. Maheshwari & Co. (supra). In order to maintain judicial discipline, this court directs the petitioner to file representation before the concerned authority with regard to lease-money to be paid by him. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of order dated 14-5-1997 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn