IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3833 of 2006. M/s. Singhvi Brothers & Company @ M/s. Rajesh Kumar Kamal Kumar Vs. State & Others Date of Order ::: 22/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. None present for the petitioner None present for the respondents **** BY THE COURT : None present even in the second round and the counsel for the respondents has filed an application stating therein that a similar writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3219 of 2006 titled as M/s. Prem Chand Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has already been dismissed vide order dated 23.02.2007 of this Court. No reply has been filed by the petitioner to the said application. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the fixation of the payment of rent of the open Platform at the rate of Rs.425/- per month from 1997 to 2006 on the ground that the same is arbitrary. The aforesaid judgment dated 23.02.2007 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3219 of 2006, titled as M/s. Prem Chand Mohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, is as follows :- "Petitioner is aggrieved by the rent claimed by the respondent-Mandi Samiti of the tin sheds put in front of shops allotted to the petitioner. The demand notices were issued to the petitioner as also other similarly situated persons. Petitioner and other persons filed respective appeals before the Director, Marketing Board agaisnt the above demand notices. The appeals have been dismissed by the Director by a common order dated 10.4.2006. It has beenheld that as per request made by the Association of Traders the platform in front of shops were covered by tin sheds and the rent was also fixe accordingly as per the areaso covered in Block-A and Block-B. As per the agreement of allotment also, the rent could be varied by the Samiti and the allottees shall have no objection in the same. After having carefully gone through the material on record, since, after due consideration, proper discretion has been used by the Director, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court under writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merit." The present writ petition involves similar controversy and the same is also accordingly dismissed. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/