1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5477/2008. M/s.Uttam Industries. VERSUS M.D., RIICO Ltd. Jaipur and Another. 09.07.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.R.P.Vijay, for the petitioner. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the notice (Annexure-5) dated 13.02.2008 whereby on account of not having started the production within the stipulated time certain recoveries were ordered to be effected against the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as a part of the scheme the respondents were required to set up a mini market yard, as has been laid down in Annexure- 1. Since the mini market yard was not established in the area by the respondents where the petitioner set up the plant, the petitioner claims that till such time the mini market yard is not established, it is not profitable and viable for the petitioner to start the production. I have considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the Annexure-1 it does not appear 2 that the respondents had in any way given out an understanding or held out any promise that they would for the facility of the allottees established in the area a mini market yard. No doubt a provision of Rs.68.07 lacs has been kept for the aforesaid purpose but it is not by way of any condition precedent at best it can only be a proposal. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner is free to raise the same by way of civil suit with regard to the loss that may have occurred to the petitioner on account of the non-providing of the alleged facilities by the respondents as claimed by him as such a dispute cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Subject to the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.