CW 8776/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8776/07 M/s. Madan Lal Pawan Kumar Rawat Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 01/04/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Ajay Gupta, for petitioner Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for respondents *** At joint request, matter is finally decided at this stage. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner who was one of the trader, doing its business of agriculture produce in Chandpole Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, seeking allotment of shop/plot in New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is running its business of agriculture produce in Chandpole Mandi Yard for last 35 yrs. However, the Government took policy decision to shift all the traders from Chandpole Mandi Yard to New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera of eligible applicants, tentative list was prepared by the respondents, but no shop/plot was allotted to the petitioner in New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, CW 8776/07 [2] Kukerkhera. Counsel further submits that in the tentative list, petitioner secured 99 marks out of 100, but still for certain extraneous reasons, it was deprived from fair consideration for allotment of shop/plot in Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and brought to the notice of this court that after series of litigation with respect to allotment of shop/plot in Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera, Division Bench of this court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Ashoka Oil Indus. [2009 (1) WLC-94] gave final direction for allotment of left out plots in New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera. Counsel further submits that once the Division Bench has finally concluded the matter with the direction for allotment of remaining plots, the petitioner cannot seek further direction from this court for allotment contrary to what has been observed by the Division Bench in the judgment [supra] – relevant para whereof is reproduced as under: “We have seriously thought over the claims and counter claims of the appellants and the respondents. Dismissal or allowing the appeal will not solve the problem of either of the parties. A solution has to CW 8776/07 [3] 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 accordingly to the policy.” Counsel further brought to the notice of this court that permanent licence, which was issued to the petitioner during pendendy, has been cancelled – against which he preferred appeal which is pending before the concerned competent authority. Once the Division Bench of this court in judgment [supra] has finally disposed of appeal directing the respondents to allot remaining plots in New Krishi Upaj Mandi Yard, Kukerkhera to the traders & brokers doing their business in Sub Market Yards & Market Area, certainly any CW 8776/07 [4] direction from this court will be contrary to what has been observed by the Division Bench. In such circumstances, the petitioner can also be considered for allotment only as per directions of Division Bench in the judgment referred to supra. Consequently, writ petition stands disposed of in the light of judgment [supra]. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA8776CW07 1-4.doc