Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurManju Processing House vs Rajasthan State Industrial ... on 31 August, 2023Author:Pushpendra Singh BhatiBench:Pushpendra Singh BhatiHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                      JODHPUR\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2022\n\nRajat Sales Agency, Through Its Proprietor Vimal Kumar S/o Shri\nLoon Chad Salecha, Aged About 42 Years By Caste Oswal,\nResident Of Jerla Road, Balotra.\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,\n       Jodhpur.\n2.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,\n       Through Chairman And Managing Director.\n3.     The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State   Industrial\n       Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed\n       Road, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n                            Connected With\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1219/2022\nSurya Texcom, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Samta Devi Wife Of\nShri Naresh Kumar, By Caste Jain, Aged About 40 Years,\nResident Of Khasra No. 19, Jerla Road, Balotra, District-Barmer\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,\n       Jodhpur.\n2.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,\n       Through Chairman And Managing Director.\n3.     The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State   Industrial\n       Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed\n       Road, Balotra, District- Barmer.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1314/2022\nMaha Bajrang Processors, Through Its Proprietor Narendra\nLalwani Son Of Shri Narayan Lal Sindhi, By Caste Sindhi Lohana,\nAged About 53 Years, Resident Of Nayapura, Ward No. 8,\nBalotra, District- Barmer.\n\n\n                   (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                     (2 of 64)                              [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.    State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,\n      Jodhpur.\n2.    Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n      Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,\n      Through Chairman And Managing Director.\n3.    The     Regional       Manager,         Rajasthan           State      Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed\n      Road, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1532/2022\nSaraf Dyeing Company, Through Its Proprietor Jugal Kishore\nSaraf S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of\nAgarwal Colony, Behind Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Balotra, District\nBarmer (Raj.)\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n      Corporation       Limited       (Riico),       Through         Its     Managing\n      Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Regional       Manager,         Rajasthan           State      Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),\n      Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.\n4.    The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2258/2022\nSanwal Ram S/o Shri Tulsa Ram, Aged About 69 Years, Resident\nOf Ward No. 15, Gandhipura, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.)\nProprietor Of Santosh Dhupayi Works.\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.    State     Of   Rajasthan,        Through        The        District    Collector,\n      Barmer (Raj.).\n2.    Rajasthan Industries And Investment Corporation Limited,\n\n                     (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                      (3 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n          Through Its Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak\n          Marg, Jaipur.\n3.        Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industries And Investment\n          Corporation, Kher Road, Industrial Area, Balotra, Barmer.\n4.        Municipal Council, Through Its Commissioner, Jodhpur\n          Road, National Highway 112, Balotra, Barmer.\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261/2022\nMahadadaji Industries, Through Its Proprietor Omprakash S/o\nShri Mehar Chand Khatri, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of\nHinglaz Street, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 23, Balotra, District Barmer\n(Raj.).\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n          Corporation     Limited      (Riico),       Through       Its     Managing\n          Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State     Industrial\n          Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),\n          Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.        The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.\n4.        The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n          Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2264/2022\nHarish Peding Works, Through Its Proprietor Shri Kanhaiyalal S/o\nShri Lekhraj Khatri, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ward No.\n23 Bal Vidhya Mandi, Mahadev Colony, Balotra, District Barmer\n(Raj.).\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n          Corporation     Limited      (Riico),       Through       Its     Managing\n          Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State     Industrial\n          Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),\n          Balotra, District Barmer.\n\n\n                      (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                   (4 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.\n4.    The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                               ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2300/2022\nManju Processing House, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Manju Devi\nW/o Shri Satyanarayan, Aged About 47 Years, Ward No. 7, Near\nRamdhan Office, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n      Corporation     Limited       (Riico),       Through       Its     Managing\n      Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State     Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),\n      Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.\n4.    The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2563/2022\n\nGeeta Process, Address - 99, Main Mandiya Road, Pali Through\nIts Proprietor Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Nathmal Ji, Aged About 65\nYears, B/c Ghanchi, R/o 2, Palliwalo Ka Bass, District Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corp. Ltd.,\n       Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog\n       Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The     Collector-Cum-Chairman               Allotment      Committee,\n       Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n       Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n\n\n                   (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                  (5 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                                              ----Respondents\n\n\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5449/2021\nM/s. Rishabh Dying Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri\nGyanendra Kumar S/o Shri Udayraj Ji, Aged About 40 Years, R/\no 27 Jhuron Ka Bas, Pali, Rajasthan.\n                                                                 ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Raj. State Industrial Deve. And Investment Cor. Ltd.,\n      (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan,\n      Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan          State    Industrial\n      Development       And      Investment           Corporation        Limited,\n      (Riico) , Pali.\n3.    The District Collector Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.\n                                                              ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6069/2021\nSumit Process, 41, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj). Through Its\nProprietor Smt. Shankuntla W/o Amar Chand Jain, Age 67\nYears, By Caste Jain, R/o 41M Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj).\n                                                                 ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial               And Invest. Corp. Ltd.,\n      Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udhyog\n      Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.    The    Collector-Cum-Chairman,               Allotment          Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n5.    M/s Riico Prints, A-58, Sumerpur Road, Industrial Area,\n      Pali. Through Proprietor Haji Mohd. S/o Ahmed, By Caste\n      Chhipa Muslim, R/o A-88, Chhipo Ka Hethla Baas, Pali.\n                                                              ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6135/2021\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                     (6 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\nM/s. Vikram Textile Mils, Through Shri Trilok Chand S/o Shri\nMeetha Lal Jain Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of B-5, Sidhi\nVinayak Complex, Marudhar Nagar, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.    The    Rajasthan         State       Industrial       Development       And\n      Corporation        Limited,        Through         Its     Chairman     And\n      Managing        Director,        Udhyog        Bhawan,        Tilak   Marg,\n      Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State\n      Industrial Development And Investment Corporation\n      Limited, Iti Road Pali.\n3.    The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Iti\n      Road Pali.\n4.    The Land Allotment Committee, Through Its Chairman,\n      District Collector, Pali, The Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Corporation Limited.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6351/2021\nBhurji Dyeing, Address A/62, Sumerpur Road Industrial Area,\nPali. Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Shabana W/o Shri Umar\nFarooq Ji, Age 41 Years, By Caste Chhipa Musalman, Presently\nR/o 62-C, Jama Maszid Road, District- Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marga, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.    The    Collector-Cum-Chairman,                  Allotment      Committee,\n      Riico, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Center, Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6354/2021\n\n\n                     (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                     (7 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\nM/s. Hazi Mohammed, S/o Shri Gafoor Ji Chhipa Address A-28,\nSumerpur     Road,     Pali.     Through        Its    Proprietor,    Shri   Hazi\nMohammed S/o Shri Gafoor Ji, Age 71 Years, By Caste Chhipa\nMusalman, R/o 31, Chhipo Ka Hathela Bas, District- Pali (Raj.)\nThrough Power Of Attorney Mohammad Ismail S/o Shri Hazi\nMohammed, Age 53 Years, R/o 31, Chhipo Ka Hetla Bas, Pali.\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marga, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.    The    Collector-Cum-Chairman,                  Allotment      Committee,\n      Riico, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Center, Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6474/2021\nK.b. Fab Tax, 41, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj.) (Huf Firm)\nThrough Its Karta Amarchand Samdariya S/o Shri Heera Lal Ji,\nAge 67 Years, By Caste Samdariya, R/o 41, Bada Bas, Pali\nMarwar (Raj.).\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.    The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n      Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n5.    M/s Memuna Mohd Hussain, Through Proprietor Shri\n      Noor Mohd. S/o Shi Mohd. Hussain, R/o 13, Busi Ki Gali,\n      Pyara Chowk, District Pali.\n\n\n                     (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                      (8 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6475/2021\nM/s Classic Fabrics, Address A/62, Sumerpur Road Industrial\nArea, Pali. Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Aamana W/o Shri\nFareed Mohd., Age 84 Years, R/o 62 Juma Maszid Road, District\nPali (Raj.) Power Of Attorney Mohd. Saleem Chhipa S/o Shri\nFareed Mohd, Age 48 Years, R/o 62 Juma Maszid Road, District\nPali (Raj.).\n                                                                     ----Petitioner\n                                      Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n       Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n       Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n       Riico, Pali.\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n       Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6790/2021\nM/s. Shantilal Rajendra Kumar, B-2 Tilak Nagar, Pali Through Its\nProperietor, Rajendra Sancheti S/o Shri Premrajji, Aged About\n51 Years, R/o B-2 Tilak Nagar Mahaveer Nagar, Pali (Raj.)\n                                                                     ----Petitioner\n                                      Versus\n1.     The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Corp.\n       Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n       Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State\n       Industrial Development And Investment Corporation\n       Limited, Iti Road Pali.\n3.     The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State Industrial\n       Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Iti\n       Road Pali.\n4.     The Land Allotment Committee, Through Its Chairman\n       District Collector, Pali The Rajasthan State Industrial\n\n\n                      (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                    (9 of 64)                             [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n       Development And Corporation Limited.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9975/2021\nBhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 55\nYears, R/o College Road, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                       ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corporation       Limited     (Riico),     Through         Its     Managing\n       Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The    Regional     Manager,         Rajasthan           State     Industrial\n       Development         And     Investment          Corporation           Limited\n       (Riico), Pali.\n3.     Allotment        Committee,        Rajasthan            State      Industrial\n       Development         And     Investment          Corporation           Limited\n       Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9981/2021\nBhanwar Lal S/o Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 55 Years,\nCollege Road, Pali (Raj.)\n                                                                       ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corp. Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director,\n       Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     Regional         Manager,       Rajasthan               State      Industrial\n       Development         And     Investment          Corporation           Limited\n       (Riico) Pali.\n3.     Allotment        Committee,        Rajasthan            State      Industrial\n       Development         And     Investment          Corporation           Limited\n       Through Its Chairman The District Collector, Pali.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994/2021\nNarayan Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 50\nYears, College Road, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                       ----Petitioner\n\n\n                   (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                     (10 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                      Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n          Corp Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Investment Corporation\n          Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog\n          Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The   Regional      Manager,         Rajasthan          State    Industrial\n          Development        And      Investment          Corporation         Limited\n          (Riico), Pali.\n3.        Allotment        Committee,        Rajasthan            State    Industrial\n          Development        And      Investment          Corporation         Limited\n          Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12208/2021\nKhivraj Amarchand Gadiya, Ramlila Maidan, Pali (Raj.), Through\nIts Proprietor, Gotam Chand Gadiya S/o Shri Amar Chand Ji,\nAge 64, By Caste Jain, R/o Veer Durga Das Nagar, District Pali\n(Raj.).\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                      Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,\n          Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog\n          Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n          Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.        The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n          Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.        The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n          Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13675/2021\nM/s Chippa Abdul Gani Abdul Gafurji, Through Its Proprietor\nMohd. Yasin S/o Shri Abdul Gafurji, Age 78 Years, R/o 43,\nRangnia Mohalla, Pali.\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                      Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n          Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n\n                      (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                  (11 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n       Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The     Collector-Cum-Chairman               Allotment      Committee,\n       Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13693/2021\nM/s. Ganesh Finishing, Address Agarwal Lane, Sindhi Colony,\nPali Through Its Partners - 1. Shri Rang Nath Bajaj S/o Shri\nGordhan Ji, Age 51 Years, By Caste Bajaja, 2. Smt. Sushila\nBajaj W/o Shri Gordhan Ji, Age 71 Years, By Caste Bajaja, Both\nR/o 18, Bikaneria Ka Bas, District Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n       Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n       Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The Collector Cum Chairman Allotment Committee,\n       Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n       Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4895/2022\nM/s Ramjan Desizing, Through Its Proprietor, Ramjaan S/o Shri\nMohd. Iqbal, Age 40 Years, By Caste Chhipa, R/o 105, Badi\nMaszid Ke Peeche, Pyara Chowk, Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n       Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n       Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n       Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n\n                   (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                    (12 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali Through General\n       Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16361/2022\nMehta Dyeing Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sampat\nRaj Bhandari S/o Shri Sohranraj Bhandari, R/o F-1-50, Mandia\nRaod, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corporation       Limited       (Riico),     Through        Its    Managing\n       Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The    Regional       Manager,         Rajasthan          State    Industrial\n       Development         And       Investment          Corporation         Limited\n       (Riico), District Pali.\n3.     The Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       Development         And       Investment          Corporation         Limited\n       Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3013/2023\nM/s Mahendra Prints, Through Its Proprietor Mahendra Kumar\nJain S/o Shri Paras Mal Jain, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 9,\nVardhman Nagar, Pali Marwar (Raj.)\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n       Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Chairman And\n       Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       Development         And       Investment          Corporation         Limited\n       (Riico), Pali, District Pali.\n3.     Land Allotment Committee, Through District Collector\n       Pali, District Pali.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                     (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                  (13 of 64)                           [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3783/2021\n\nMomin     Dying    Company,          Through         Its       Proprietor   Farid\nMohammad S/o Shri Hussain Ji , B/c Musalman, Aged About\n37 Years, R/o Madina Masjid Ke Pas, Ward No. 17, Balotra,\nDistrict Barmer.\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman And Managing\n        Director Rajasthan State Industrial Development And\n        Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak\n        Marg, Jaipur.\n2.      The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n        Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Khed\n        Road, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6272/2021\n\nMadina Dying Works, Through Its Proprietor Yusuf Ali S/o\nShri Hazi Mohammed, B/c Musalman, Aged About 71 Years,\nR/o Marwar Hardware, Khed Road, Old U.p. Center Gali,\nBalotra, District Barmer.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman And Managing\n        Director Rajasthan State Industrial Development And\n        Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak\n        Marg, Jaipur.\n2.      The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n        Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Khed\n        Road, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10335/2021\n\n Govind Ram S/o Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 45\n\n\n\n                   (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                (14 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\nYears, College Road, Pali (Raj.)\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n1.    Rajasthan        State      Industrial        Development        And\n      Investment Corp Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing\n      Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Pali.\n3.    Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n\n\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2341/2022\n\nM/s   Mohd       Khwaja      Dyeing       Company,           Through    Its\nProprietor Jamaludeen S/o Mangu Deen, Aged About 53\nYears, Resident Of Near Lalji Ka Than, Ward No. 17,\nBalotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n1.     Rajasthan       State      Industrial       Development         And\n       Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n       Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n       Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n       Industrial        Development               And        Investment\n       Corporation Limited (Riico), Kher Road, Industrial\n       Area, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                        ----Respondents\n                          Connected With\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2011\nParasmal\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                             (15 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\nState Of Raj. And Ors.\n                                                      ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11443/2011\nMohd. Imran\n                                                          ----Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState Collector Barmer And Ors\n                                                      ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11534/2011\nSona Ram\n                                                          ----Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState Collector Barmer And Ors\n                                                      ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13162/2012\nM/s. Mohd. Yunush Dyeing Works\n                                                          ----Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState Of Raj. And Ors\n                                                      ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13163/2012\nM/s. Mayur Madhavi Mills\n                                                          ----Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState Of Raj. And Ors\n                                                      ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13164/2012\nNiraj Kumar\n                                                          ----Petitioner\n                              Versus\nState Of Raj. And Ors\n                                                      ----Respondent\n\n\n\n              (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                              (16 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2594/2014\nSanwal Ram\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\nState And Ors.\n                                                       ----Respondent\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3526/2015\nM/s Man Ganga Dying Company\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\nRaj. State Indu. Deve. And Inv. And Anr.\n                                                       ----Respondent\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15331/2017\nM/s Arafat Textiles, Balotra, District Barmer Through\nManager, Imran S/o Shri Shabir, Resident Of Main Bazar,\nBalotra Raj.\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n      Industrial       Development               And        Investment\n      Corporation Riico, Kher Road, Industrial Area,\n      Balotra, District Barmer\n                                                      ----Respondents\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15340/2017\nM/s Tak Textiles, Through Its Proprietor Imran S/o Shri\nShabir, Resident Of Main Bazar, Balotra Raj.\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n\n\n\n               (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                              (17 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n      Industrial       Development               And        Investment\n      Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial\n      Area, Balotra, District Barmer\n                                                      ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15443/2017\nIsmile Khan S/o Shri Barkat Khan Chhipa, Resident Of\nLalji Ka Than, Balotra, District Barmer Proprietor Of M/s\nM. Janata Textile, Jerla Road, Balotra.\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n      Industrial       Development               And        Investment\n      Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial\n      Area, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                      ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15444/2017\nM/s Rajasthan Textiles Through Proprietor Shri Alta\nAhmed S/o Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Sadar Bazar,\nKhatriyon Ka Chowk, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                           ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n      Industrial       Development               And        Investment\n      Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial\n      Area, Balotra, District Barmer\n                                                      ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15600/2017\nRadheyshyam Textile Through Proprietor Santosh Kumar\nSharma S/o Shri Nathu Lal Sharma, By Cast - Brahmin,\n\n\n\n               (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                              (18 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\nR/o Mohini Niwas, Near Old Bus Stand, Balotra, District -\nBarmer, Rajasthan.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development           And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag,    Udhyog         Bhawan,         Tilak       Marg,    Jaipur,\n      Rajasthan.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      Riico, Industrial Area, Balotra, District - Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/2018\nM/s Parasram Fabrics, Through Its Proprietor Nand\nKishore S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal, By Caste Agarwal, R/o.\nAgarwal Colony, Near Agarsen School, Balotra, Barmer.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development           And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      And Invetment Corporation Limited Riico, Balotra,\n      District Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7272/2018\nMadina Textile Through Its Proprietor Mohd. Ayub S/o\nShri Mohd. Habib, Resident Of Near Madina Masjid, Ward\nNo. 17, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                               Versus\n1.    Rajasthan     State       Industrial       Development           And\n      Investment Corporation Riico Limited, Through Its\n      Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n\n\n               (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                               (19 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      Rii, Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7275/2018\nJilani Dyeing Company Through Its Proprietor Mohd.\nHussain S/o Shri Mohd. Habib, Resident Of Near Madina\nMasjid, Ward No. 17, Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its\n      Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      Rii, Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11201/2018\nM/s Mohd. Sayed Dying Company, Through Its Proprietor\nBundu Khan S/o, Usman, By Caste Musalmaan, Having\nIts Office At Harizan Basti Ward No. 22, Balotra, District\nBarmer.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited, (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n\n\n\n                (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                               (20 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12023/2018\nMaha Arihant Finishing, Through Its Proprietor Ashok\nKumar S/o Shri Mishri Mal Aged About 42 Years,\nRabariyon Ka Tanka No. 1, Balotra, Dist. Barmer\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited(Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajathan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, Dist. Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12092/2018\nMaha Sagar Chemical, Through Its Proprietor Hastimal\nS/o Shri Sagarmal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of\nWard No. 4, Regarpura, Dhanji I Dhani, Balotra, District\nBarmer (Raj.)\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12118/2018\nKrishna Dyeing Company, Through Its Proprietor Gautam\nChand Jain S/o Mishri Mal Jain Aged About 45 Years,\n\n\n\n                (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                               (21 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\nResident Of Jerla Road, Ward No. 15, Balotra, District\nBarmer (Raj.)\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development           And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12136/2018\nMaharani   Dyeing       Company,          Through           Its   Proprietor\nBhagwana Ram S/o Shri Tulchha Ram, Aged About 55\nYears, Resident Of Mahadev Colony, Ward No. 22,\nBalotra, District Barmer (Raj.)\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development           And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17397/2018\nMadras Finishing Works, Proprietor Sakina Banu W/o Shri\nVali Mohd., Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Third\nCrossing, Regarpura, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                             ----Petitioner\n\n\n\n                (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                               (22 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n4.    The   Divisional       Commissioner,            Jodhpur     (Camp\n      Balotra).\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17409/2018\nFaird Mohd Dyeing, Proprietor Hinifa Wd/o Shri Farid\nMohd, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Panghat Road, Balotra\nThrough Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Imran S/o\nShri Sabirji, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar,\nBalotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n4.    The   Divisiional       Commissioner,           Jodhpur     (Camp\n      Balotra).\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17411/2018\nReliance Dhulai Works, Through Its Proprietor Om\nPrakash S/o Shri Mishri Mal Mali, R/o Gandhipura,\n\n\n\n                (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                               (23 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\nBalotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n4.    The   Divisiional       Commissioner,           Jodhpur     (Camp\n      Balotra).\n                                                       ----Respondents\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19149/2018\nM/s. Lala Ram Kana Ram, Having Its Office At Opposite\nRoop Ji Ka Bera, Near Shamshan Ghat, Balotra, District\nBarmer, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Mohd.\nImran S/o Mohd. Sabir, Age About 34 Years, R/o Nagina\nMasjid, Chatriyo Ka Morcha Panghat Road, Balotra.\n                                                            ----Petitioner\n                                Versus\n1.    Rajasthan      State       Industrial       Development        And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through\n      Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n                                                       ----Respondents\n\n\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2320/2022\n\nRamdhan Cotton Mills, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Basanti\nDevi W/o Shri Raghuveer Prasad, Aged About 61 Years,\nResident Of Ward No. 4, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District\n\n\n                (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (24 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\nBarmer (Raj.).\n                                                                ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan        State       Industrial        Development         And\n      Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its\n      Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n      Barmer.\n4.    The       Divisional      Commissioner             Cum       Allotment\n      Committee, Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                          ----Respondents\n                           Connected With\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3831/2013\nSuryodaya Industries, Balotra\n                                                                ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\nRaj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., And An\n                                                              ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5101/2013\nManbhawan Dhulai Works, Balotra\n                                                                ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\nRaj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andanr\n                                                              ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7558/2013\nK.d. Process,\n                                                                ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\nRaj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andors\n                                                              ----Respondent\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                (25 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8369/2013\nM/s. Ashok Kothari And Company,\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nRaj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andors\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8539/2013\nMohammad Gani\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nState Andors.\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9144/2013\nGulam Rasool\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nState And ors.\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/2014\nM/s Mahadev Rangai\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nState And Ors.\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7504/2015\nM/s Vandana Synthetics Mills\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nRiico And Ors.\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8330/2016\nM/s Prem India Fabrics\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                (26 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                 Versus\nState And Anr.\n                                                             ----Respondent\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10046/2016\nM/s. Vishal Textiles\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nState And Anr\n                                                             ----Respondent\n       S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10305/2016\nM/s. Jeetu Products\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\nState And Anr\n                                                             ----Respondent\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5332/2021\nM/s. Vinayak Febtek, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Vandana\nKarnawat W/o Shri Rajnish Karnawat, Aged About 51\nYears, R/o 1, Ahinsha Complex, Ambedkar Circle, Pali,\nRajasthan.\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n1.    Raj. State Industrial Deve. And Investment Cor.\n      Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog\n      Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n      Development And Investment Corporation Limited,\n      (Riico), Pali.\n3.    The District Collector Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6110/2021\n1.    M/s Narendra Tex Printers, Through Its Proprietor\n      Narendra Kumar Talesara S/o Udairaj Ji Talesara,\n      Aged About 53 Years, R/o 138, Mahaveer Nagar,\n      Pali, Rajasthan.\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (27 of 64)                        [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n2.     M/s Narendra Printers, Through Its Proprietor Rakhi\n       Talesara W/o Narendra Kumar Talesara, Aged About\n       50 Years, R/o 138, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Rajasthan.\n3.     M/s Madhu Tax Mils, Through Its Proprietor Smt\n       Madhu Bohra W/o Pramod Kumar Bohra Aged About\n       45 Years, R/o 75, Jodhpuriya Bass Pali, Rajasthan.\n4.     M/s Akashy Finishing, Through Its Proprietor Vijay\n       Kishore Bohra S/o Mishrimal Bohra, Aged About 50\n       Years, R/o 14, Nehru Nagar, Pali, Rajasthan.\n5.     M/s Nakoda Industries, Through Its Proprietor Smt\n       Nisha Baliya W/o Mukesh Baliya, Aged About 45\n       Years, R/o 16, Baliyo Ka Bass, Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.\n6.     M/s Manak Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor\n       Pradeep Kumar Golcha S/o Sumer Mal Golcha, Aged\n       About 55 Years, R/o 212, Veer Durga Das Nagar,\n       Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.\n7.     M/s Rahul Fabrics, Through Its Proprietor Sanjay\n       Kumar Golcha S/o Sumer Mal Golcha, Aged About\n       57 Years, R/o 212, Veer Durga Das Nagar, Pali, Pali,\n       Rajasthan.\n                                                             ----Petitioners\n                                 Versus\n1.     Rajasthan        State     Industrial        Development        And\n       Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its\n       Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n       Jaipur.\n2.     The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n       (Riico), Pali.\n3.     District Collector, Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8407/2021\nM/s Navkar Finishing, Ramlela Maidan, Pali. Through Its\nProprietor Smt. Rama Kanwari W/o Shri Dileep Kumar Ji,\nAge About 59 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 27, Bada Bas,\nDistrict Pali.\n                                                              ----Petitioner\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (28 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                 Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corp.\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior        Regional       Manager, Rajasthan               State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.\n      Road, Pali.\n3.    The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Center, Pali. Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9411/2021\nVinod Textile Mills\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n1.    Rajasthan       State        Industrial         And       Investment\n      Corporation       Ltd.,     Through         Its        Chairman    And\n      Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior        Regional       Manager, Rajasthan               State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.\n      Road, Pali.\n3.    The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre, Pali. Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2028/2022\nMagan Dyeing, Through Its Manager Mahesh Lalwani S/o\nLate Shri Daya Ram Lalwani, Aged About 38 Years,\nResident Of Gandhipura, Vanarchowk, Balotra, District\nBarmer (Raj.).\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                 Versus\n1.    Rajasthan       State       Industrial        Development          And\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                   (29 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n     Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its\n     Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n     Jaipur.\n2.   The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n     Development And Investment Corporation Limited\n     (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.   The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,\n     Barmer.\n4.   The       Divisional      Commissioner              Cum         Allotment\n     Committee, Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                         ----Respondents\n\n\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10653/2023\n\nSonu Industries, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners -\n1. Rajmal Kawad S/o Shri Vijay Raj Kawad, Age 52\nYears, By Caste Jain, R/o 108, Sojatiya Bas, Pali. 2.\nVidhya Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore, Age 67 Years, R/o\n12, Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali\n                                                              ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.    Rajasthan        State         Industrail      And        Investment\n      Corporation         Ltd.,     Through        Its   Chairman         And\n      Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n      Jaipur.\n2.    The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n      Industrail And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.\n      Road, Pali.\n3.    The       Collector          Cum         Chairman,             Allotment\n      Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The      District    Industries          Centre,       Pali,    Through\n      General Manager Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n                          Connected With\n      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17709/2022\nHanuman     Fabrics,        Bajrang        Bari,    Pali      Through      Its\nProprietor Saurabh Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora,\n\n\n\n                 (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                  (30 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n\nAge 40 Years, By Caste Arora, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla,\nPali.\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.      Rajasthan       State       Industrial        And        Investment\n        Corporation      Ltd.,     Through         Its    Chairman         And\n        Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n        Jaipur.\n2.      The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n        Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i.\n        Road, Pali.\n3.      The Collector Cum Chairman Allotment Committee,\n        Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.      The   District      Industries        Centre,         Pali     Through\n        General Manger Cum Member Secretary.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n        S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11020/2023\nKamal Prints, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners- 1.\nManish Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora, Age 47 Years,\nBy Caste Arora, R/o Khatrio Ka Mohalla, Pali. 2. Ram\nNiwas Jat S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Age 53 Years, R/o\nMewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.\n                                                               ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.      Rajasthan       State       Industrial        And        Investment\n        Corporation      Ltd.,     Through         Its    Chairman         And\n        Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,\n        Jaipur.\n2.      The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State\n        Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.\n        Road, Pali.\n3.      The         Collector-Cum-Chairman                            Allotment\n        Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.      The   District     Industries         Centre,         Pali,    Through\n        General Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                         ----Respondents\n\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (31 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10859/2023\n\nGanpati Process, 6, Setho Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.), Through Its\nProprietor Vinod Kumar Lodha S/o Balchand J, Age 59 Years,\nBy Caste Jain, R/o 6, Setho Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Senior     Regional        Manager,             Rajasthan   State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,\n      Pali.\n3.    The     Collector-Cum-Chairman              Allotment        Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10999/2023\n\nNandu Dyeing, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners- 1.\nNand Kishore Arora S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ji Arora, Age 70 Years,\nBy Caste Arora, R/o 12, Khatrio Ka Mohalla, Pali. 2. Kavita\nKawad W/o Shri Sohan Ji Kawad, Age 52 Years, By Caste\nKawad, R/o Sojatiya Bas, Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Senior     Regional        Manager,             Rajasthan   State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,\n      Pali.\n3.    The     Collector-Cum-Chairman              Allotment        Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (32 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11004/2023\n\nRaju Processing Center, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its\nProprietor - Naman Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora, Age\n39 Years, By Caste Arora, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Senior     Regional        Manager,             Rajasthan   State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,\n      Pali.\n3.    The     Collector-Cum-Chairman              Allotment        Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.    The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n      Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                               ----Respondents\n\n\n         S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11757/2023\n\nShwet Shilp Industries, Shastri Nagar, Bajrang Bari, Pali,\nThrough Its Partners - 1. Vinod Kumar Maheshwari S/o Shri\nSawar Mal, Age 67 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 2-Kha-\n10, Housing Board, Pali. 2. Smt. Soniya Arora W/o Shri\nNaman Arora, Age 37 Years, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali.\n                                                                  ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n      Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n      Udyog Bhawan, Tilk Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The     Senior     Regional        Manager,             Rajasthan   State\n      Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road,\n      Pali.\n3.    The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,\n      Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                 (33 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n       Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                              ----Respondents\n\n\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1615/2022\n\nRamdhan Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sarju Kishore\nGupta S/o Shri Ramdhan Ji, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of\nWard No. 4, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                                 ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n      Corporation       Limited    (Riico),      Through        Its    Managing\n      Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The    Regional     Manager,        Rajasthan           State    Industrial\n      Development        And      Investment          Corporation        Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The    District    Collector      Cum        Allotment          Committee,\n      Barmer.\n4.    The Divisional Commissioner, Cum Allotment Committee\n      Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                              ----Respondents\n                           Connected With\n            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1470/2022\nSmt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Jai Prakash Goyal, Aged About 59\nYears, Ward No. 3, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer\n(Raj.), Proprietor Of Shree Process.\n                                                                 ----Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n1.    Rajastha State Industrial Dev. And Investment Corp.\n      Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog\n      Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.    The    Regional     Manager,        Rajasthan           State    Industrial\n      Development        And      Investment          Corporation        Limited\n      (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.    The    District    Collector      Cum        Allotment          Committee,\n      Barmer.\n\n\n                  (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                     (34 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n4.        The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n          Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n\n\n                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/2022\n\nHem India Mills, Through Its Proprietor Babu Lal S/o Shri\nBhiam Ram Mali, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Agarwal Colony,\nWard No. 3, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).\n                                                                     ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n          Cor. Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog\n          Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The    Regional     Manager,        Rajasthan           State    Industrial\n          Development       And       Investment          Corporation        Limited\n          (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.        The    District   Collector       Cum        Allotment          Committee,\n          Barmer.\n4.        The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n          Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n\n\n                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2270/2022\n\nRamanuj Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shrawan Kumar S/\no Shri Pukhraj, Aged About 47 Years, Ward N. 7, Near\nRamdhan Office, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer\n(Raj.).\n                                                                     ----Petitioner\n                                     Versus\n1.        Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment\n          Cor. Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog\n          Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.        The    Regional     Manager,        Rajasthan           State    Industrial\n          Development       And       Investment          Corporation        Limited\n          (Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.\n3.        The    District   Collector       Cum        Allotment          Committee,\n          Barmer.\n\n                      (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                   (35 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n4.     The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,\n       Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).\n                                                                ----Respondents\n\n\n          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10709/2023\n\nJai Hanuman Desizing, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Proprietor\nVarsha Arora W/o Saurabh Arora, Age 38 Years, R/o Khatriyo\nKa Mohalla, Pali.\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation\n       Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,\n       Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n2.     The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial\n       And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.\n3.     The     Collector-Cum-Chairman                Allotment      Committee,\n       Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.\n4.     The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General\n       Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.\n                                                                ----Respondents\n\n\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6887/2015\n\nMohan Lal Mandot\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\nState And Ors\n                                                                ----Respondent\n\n\n          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11780/2021\n\nM/s. Chopra Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Pukhraj\nChopra S/o Shri Ganeshmal Chopra, Aged About 72 Years, R/o\n105, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali (Raj.).\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     Raj. State Industrial Development And Investment Cor.\n\n\n                    (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)\n                                   (36 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n\n        Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan,\n        Tilak Marg, Jaipur.\n 2.     The   Regional         Manager,     Rajasthan           State    Industrial\n        Development        And      Investment          Corporation        Limited\n        (Riico), Pali.\n 3.     Allotment        Committee,        Rajasthan            State    Industrial\n        Development        And      Investment          Corporation        Limited\n        Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. O.P. Mehta with Mr. V.D. Gaur,\n                                Mr.B.S. Sandhu, Mr. Girish Kumar\n                                Sankhala, Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr.N.S.\n                                Rajpurohit, Mr.Devkinandan Vyas,\n                                Mr.Mahaveer Singh, Mr. Rahul Sharma\n                                for Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra,, Mr.P.D.\n                                Bohra, Mr. Hemant Ballani, Mr.Tushar\n                                Moad, Mr. Sunil Vyas and Mr.Rajesh\n                                Choudhary.\nFor Respondent(s)          :    Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr.Rajat\n                                Arora, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. R.D.\n                                Bhadu Dy.G.C., Mr. Aidan Choudhary,\n                                Mr. Talat Bari & Mr. M.S. Purohit.\n\n\n\n      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATIJudgment\n\nReserved on 01/08/2023, 07/08/2023, 17/08/2023,\n18/08/2023, 19/08/2023 & 21/08/2023\nPronounced on 31/08/20231.    Though the present petitions were heard separately and on\n\ndifferent dates, but looking into the commonality of the issues\n\ninvolved in all the present petitions, notwithstanding the marginal\n\nvariation in the contextual facts, they are being decided by this\n\ncommon judgment.1.1. The instant petitions pertain to allotment of industrial plots\n\nby the Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(37 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nCorporation Limited (RIICO), in lieu of shifting of the industries, in\n\ncompliance of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this\n\nHon'ble Court in D.B. Writ Petition (PIL) No.2481/2002 (Mahesh\n\nPareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 02.04.2004),\n\nwhereby directions were issued for shifting of the existing\n\nindustries situated in the non-conforming areas/municipal areas of\n\nBalotra and Pali districts (Rajasthan).1.2.   In pursuance of the same, a survey was conducted under\n\nthe directions of the concerned authorities, whereupon a survey\n\nlist was prepared showing that certain industrial units were found\n\nfunctional in the non-conforming areas of Balotra and Pali districts.\n\nThereafter, it was decided, as a mandatory measure, that those\n\nindustrial units whose names have been mentioned in the survey\n\nlist and applies accordingly, in pursuance of the concerned\n\nadvertisement(s), shall be considered for the allotment of the\n\nindustrial plots in question, subject to mandatory production of\n\nthe documents, as mentioned in the said advertisement(s).\n\n1.3. However,    the   aforementioned            process,       as   regards   the\n\ndistricts of Balotra & Pali, in particular, gave rise to twin issues.\n\nThe said twin issues relating to the said districts, which fall for\n\nconsideration of this Court in the present petitions, read as under:(a) Certain industrial units, whose names though figured in\n\nthe survey list, but have not been considered for allotment\n\nof the industrial plot(s) in question.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(38 of 64)                    [CW-1311/2022](b) Certain industrial units, whose names, neither figured\n\nin the survey list, nor they have been considered for\n\nallotment of the industrial plot(s) in question.2.    For the purpose of the present analogous adjudication, this\n\nCourt considers it appropriate to draw the outline thereof, by\n\nmentioning, in the present judgment, the factual matrix pertaining\n\nto the districts of Balotra and Pali (Rajasthan), separately;\n\nlikewise, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and\n\nthe observations of this Court, shall also be drawn separately.\n\n2.1. However, prior thereto, it is considered appropriate to\n\nreproduce the prayer clauses of the said two writ petitions,\n\ncovering, in sum and substance, the reliefs, as claimed in all the\n\ninstant petitions, as hereunder:S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1311/2022:"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed\n     that this Writ Petition of the petitioner may kindly be\n     accepted and:-(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned\n     rejection order dated 13.05.2017 (Annexure-18) as far as\n     rejection of candidature of petitioner firm for allotment of\n     industrial plot is question may kindly be quashed and set\n     aside and consequence thereof the application for allotment\n     of industrial plot made by the petitioner firm (Annexure-10) may kindly be allowed and the respondent authority\n     R.I.I.C.O. may kindly be directed to allot the industrial plot\n     in favour of the petitioner firm forthwith at rate prevailing\n     on the date of making application.(iii) any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court\n     deem just and proper be passed in favor of the petitioner\n     firm.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(39 of 64)                       [CW-1311/2022](iv) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the\n      petitioner firm."S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1311/2022:"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed\n      that this writ may kindly be allowed and by a writ of\n      mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and\n      directions:(i) The e-auction notice dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-7)\n      may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set\n      aside, to the extent, it propose to make allotment of 10\n      industrial plot situated in Punayata Industrial Area, Pali;(ii) The order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure-8) alongwith\n      letter dated 10.03.2021 passed by the District Collector, Pali\n      may also be quashed and set-aside.(iii) The respondent RIICO may further be directed to make\n      proper compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble\n      Court in the earlier round of writ petition and to make\n      allotment of industrial plot to the petitioner.(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just\n      and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be\n      granted.(v) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the\n      petitioner."3.     To appropriately deal with the first issue i.e.                   (a) Certain\n\nindustrial units, whose names though figured in the survey\n\nlist, but have not been considered for allotment of the\n\nindustrial plot(s) in question, the factual matrix is being taken\n\nfrom      the       above-numbered              S.B.       Civil      Writ   Petition\n\nNo.1311/2022 (for adjudication relating to Balotra District)\n\nand      the     above-numbered                S.B.        Civil      Writ   Petition(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(40 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nNo.5449/2021 (for adjudication relating to Pali District),\n\nwhile treating the same as lead cases.3.1. As per the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition\n\nNo.1311/2022 (for the adjudication relating to Balotra\n\nDistrict), the petitioner-Firm was running a small scale industry in\n\nmunicipal limits of the Balotra District (Rajasthan). On count of\n\nincreasing pollution levels in Balotra, the aforementioned Public\n\nInterest Litigation (PIL) was preferred before this Hon'ble Court,\n\nwherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, on 02.04.2004,\n\nissued certain directions; the relevant portion ofthe said\n\njudgmentis reproduced as hereunder:-"I. The Pollution Control Board shall immediately make fresh\n    inspection   of   the    Textile     Processing       Units   at   Pali   and\n    surrounding areas and in case any of the units are found to be\n    creating pollution and not connected to the CETPs shall be\n    closed.II. The units which are creating pollution shall adopt measures\n    to eliminate pollution.III. RIICO shall set up industrial area at a suitable place\n    exclusively for textile processing units. The industrial area must\n    be located at an appropriate distance from residential areas.\n    RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six\n    months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area\n    from residential areas immediately thereafter.\n\n    IV. The trust shall make modification in the CETP so that the\n    emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed\n    by the Pollution Control Board.V. The industrial units which are discharging the industrial\n    pollutant on the land or/and river shall be closed forthwith.\n\n    VI. The State shall employ experts to assess the damage\n    caused to the environment and health of the public by the\n    pollution created by the Units. On assessment of the damage,(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(41 of 64)                       [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n    the concerned authority shall file a report in this court within a\n    period of eight weeks, whereupon the question of payment of\n    compensation by the units on the principles of polluter pays\n    shall be determined".3.1.1. In compliance of the said directions, the respondent- RIICO\n\nissued   an    advertisement           dated      14.10.2010        and   invited\n\napplications for making allotment of the industrial plots at the new\n\nand appropriately distant location for establishing the industries in\n\nquestion, in lieu of shifting of the industrial units; the said\n\nadvertisement was published in the newspaper, wherein the list of\n\ndocuments, for the purpose, was also mentioned.\n\n3.1.2. The petitioner-Firm applied for allotment of the land under\n\nthe RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 alongwith the requisite\n\ndemand draft. The respondent-RIICO vide order dated 12.09.2012\n\nhowever, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground\n\nthat petitioner has not furnished certain requisite documents.\n\n3.1.3. The petitioner thereupon, filed a various representations\n\nagainst the aforesaid rejection order; whereafter the petitioner\n\nalso filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No.10936/2013) before this\n\nHon'ble Court, which was decided on 13.12.2021, while directing\n\nthe respondents to pass a fresh order, after duly considering the\n\ndocuments     so   furnished      by     the     petitioner.     Thereafter,   the\n\nrespondent-RIICO hold a Meeting on 13.05.2017, and drawn the\n\nMinutes thereof, rejecting the petitioner's application on the\n\nground that the petitioner-Firm was not in existence at the time of\n\nrejection, whereas the plots were lying vacant, residential colonies(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(42 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nare established and other shops/godowns were running on the site\n\nconcerned.3.1.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the\n\nimpugned orders were passed by the respondent-RIICO without\n\ngiving any opportunity them.3.1.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\non one hand, the respondent-RIICO did not voluntarily furnish the\n\ncopy of the impugned rejection orders, while on the other hand,\n\nthe industrial plots were being allotted continuously to the other\n\nindustrial units by auction.3.1.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the\n\npetitioners filed applications for allotment of the industrial plots in\n\nquestion along with all the relevant documents mentioned in the\n\nadvertisement published by the respondent-RIICO, and therefore\n\nthe entire impugned action of the respondent is illegal and not\n\njustified in law.3.1.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nthe   petitioners         have     the     electricity       connections,         Pollution\n\nCertificates,     Title    Documents,           Balance       Sheets/       Income     Tax\n\nReturns,    and other documents mentioned in the advertisement\n\nprior to the year 2004 i.e. 02.04.2004, and therefore, on that\n\ncount also, the impugned action of the respondent is not\n\nsustainable in the eye of law.3.1.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the\n\npetitioners are eligible for allotment of the industrial plots in\n\nquestion,    as     though       they      have       produced        all   the   relevant(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(43 of 64)                    [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\ndocuments, but the respondent-RIICO without considering the\n\nsame passed the impugned orders.3.1.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nthe Municipal Council, Balotra conducted the survey and issued\n\nthe list of the industries running in the Municipal Limits of Balotra,\n\nand also prepared the survey report, wherein the names of the\n\npetitioners were included, which clearly shows the existence of the\n\npetitioners as industry in Balotra.3.1.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that\n\nvarious plots are still lying vacant, but the respondent-RIICO\n\nwishes to make fresh allotment of such plots through auction,\n\nwhich cannot be permissible, because the industrial area has been\n\nestablished only for the industries, which are sought to be shifted.\n\nTherefore, as per learned counsel, the entire conduct of the\n\nrespondent-RIICO is arbitrary and against the rule of law.\n\n3.1.11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\n\nthe respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made\n\non behalf of the petitioners, submitted that due deliberations,\n\npertaining to the applications of the petitioners for the allotments\n\nin question, were made by the Allotment Committee comprising\n\nthe Divisional Commissioner and the District Collector, whereupon,\n\nthe Committee has recorded a specific reason that the petitioners\n\nhave not submitted the mandatory documents, and thus, they do\n\nnot fall under the criteria for allotment of the industrial plots in\n\nquestion.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(44 of 64)                            [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n3.1.12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat for the purpose of shifting of the industries in question, the\n\nMunicipal Council, Balotra conducted the survey, wherein 115\n\nunits were being found functional in non-conforming areas of\n\nBalotra. Thereafter, the Allotment Committee was constituted and\n\nheaded by the District Collector, Balotra. The advertisement in\n\nquestion   was     issued   in    the     newspaper,             for   submission   of\n\napplications alongwith the relevant documents i.e. Electricity bills,\n\nNotices issued by Pollution Control Board, Balance-Sheet, Income\n\nTax Returns, Sales Tax Valuations, Purchase & Sales Bills, Audit\n\nReports, Documents pertaining to ownership of land and affidavit.\n\n3.1.13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that\n\nthe entire process was completed by the Committee headed by\n\nthe Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, after site inspection, and\n\nfinally, all the applications were duly considered and decided,\n\nthereafter, the allotments of the industrial plots in question were\n\ndone.3.1.14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat the applications of the petitioners were rejected, no sole on\n\nthe ground of non-production of all the requisite documents, as\n\nmentioned in the advertisement dated 14.12.2010, , but also, at\n\nthe time of deciding the applications of the petitioners, certain\n\nother deficiencies, such as i.e. show cause notice of water\n\npollution board, electricity bill, income tax return, audit report and\n\nother   relevant    documents,          were      found,         which    also   were\n\nmandatory as per the advertisement dated 14.12.2010.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(45 of 64)                      [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n3.1.15. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that\n\nthe some industrial plots in question, as were demanded by the\n\npetitioners, were already allotted to the other industrial units, who\n\nwere duly entitled therefor, on count of submission of all the\n\nrequisite documents; apart therefrom, dual allotment of the same\n\nindustrial plots is not permissible in law.3.1.16. It was further submitted that the final decision in the\n\nmatter of allotment was taken by the Committee headed by the\n\nDistrict Collector in the year 2014 as well as the Committee\n\nheaded by the Divisional Commissioner in the year 2017, and\n\ntherefore, the concurrent rejection of the applications of the\n\npetitioners so validly made, is justified in law.\n\n3.1.17. It was also submitted that the petitioners herein could not\n\nshow their bona fides so far as the present case is concerned,\n\nbecause the documents, which were submitted by the petitioners\n\nwere not reliable and there were various deficiencies in the same;\n\ntherefore, the industrial plots in question were not allotted to\n\nthem; thus, the impugned action of the respondent-RIICO does\n\nnot suffer any legal infirmity.3.2.   As   the   facts   pleaded        in     S.B.     Civil   Writ   Petition\n\nNo.5449/2021 (for adjudication relating to Pali District)\n\nwould reveal, in compliance of the directions issued by the\n\nDivision Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 02.04.2004 in the\n\naforementioned PIL Petition, the respondent-RIICO, Pali issued an\n\nadvertisement dated 11.05.2009, inviting applications for making\n\nallotments of the industrial plots, at the new and appropriately(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(46 of 64)                    [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\ndistant location for establishing the industries in question, in lieu\n\nof shifting of the industrial units; the said advertisement was\n\npublished in the newspaper, wherein the list of documents, for the\n\npurpose, was also mentioned.3.2.1. The petitioner filed an application along with all the relevant\n\ndocuments before the respondents for allotment of the industrial\n\nplot in question, the respondents vide minutes of the meetings\n\ndated 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009, rejected the said application.\n\n3.2.2. The said rejection order was challenged by the petitioner\n\nbefore this Hon'ble Court by preferring a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P.\n\n1186/2010), whereupon this Hon'ble Court vide order dated\n\n17.04.2013, directed the respondent to reconsider the application\n\nof the petitioner. The respondents thereupon, filed a Special\n\nAppeal before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court; whereupon\n\nthe Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 11.07.2016 remanded\n\nthe matter back to the Hon'ble Single Bench. Thereafter, the\n\nHon'ble Court vide order 28.08.2019, directed the respondents to\n\nre-consider the application of the petitioner.\n\n3.2.3. The respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2021 to the\n\npetitioner calling upon it to produce all the relevant documents\n\nwithin the seven days thereafter, in compliance whereof, the\n\npetitioner submitted all the relevant documents. The respondent\n\nvide order dated 19.02.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner.\n\nSubsequently, the respondent proceeded to issue an e-auction\n\nnotice on 03.03.2021 and also initiated the process of allotment of\n\nplots in Punayata Industrial Area by way of auction.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(47 of 64)                      [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n3.2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per\n\nthe documents, the petitioners being situated in a non-conforming\n\narea prior to the year 2003-2004, they were entitled to get the\n\nindustrial plots in question; however, the respondent in any\n\narbitrary manner and without any reasoning passed the impugned\n\norders.3.2.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nname of the petitioners were included in the survey list, prepared\n\nin pursuance of the survey so conduced by the concerned\n\nmunicipal body, and thus, they were duly entitled for the allotment\n\nof the industrial plots in question.3.2.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that\n\npetitioners though produce all the documents as mentioned in the\n\nadvertisement in question, but the Allotment Committee, while\n\ncompletely ignoring such documents, passed                       the impugned\n\norders, which is highly illegal and unjustified in law.\n\n3.2.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in\n\naccordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, and as per\n\nthe   advertisement,     there      was       no    requirement        of    all   the\n\ndocuments,    as   required       by    the     respondents;      in        case   the\n\npetitioners were able to produce any one document, they were\n\nfully eligible for the allotment of the industrial plots in question.\n\n3.2.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that\n\nvarious writ petitions was preferred before this Hon'ble Court,\n\nwherein the Hon'ble Court directed the respondent to reconsider\n\nthe applications of the petitioners, but despite of the same, the(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(48 of 64)                        [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nrespondent, in any arbitrary manner, rejected the application of\n\nthe petitioners vide the impugned orders.3.2.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in\n\nsome of the writ petitions, the respondent allotted the industrial\n\nplots in question to the tenant of the land, while rejecting the\n\napplications of the landlord (petitioners), without there being any\n\nconsent for such allotment; therefore, as per learned counsel, on\n\nthat count also, the impugned action of the respondent is\n\nunjustified in law.3.2.10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of\n\nthe respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made\n\non behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Allotment\n\nCommittee was headed by the District Collector, and thus, the\n\nrespondent-RIICO was not the sole decision-making authority;\n\nrather the respondent-RIICO is only one of the members of the\n\nAllotment Committee, and therefore, the impugned orders passed\n\nafter considering all the relevant aspects of the case, are justified\n\nin law.3.2.11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat   the   Allotment     Committee          followed        the   conditions,   as\n\nmentioned in the advertisement in question as well as the\n\nguidelines issued by the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel also\n\nsubmitted that the Allotment Committee has considered in all 102\n\nmatters, and thereupon, as many as 90 claims have been\n\nrejected, which did not fulfill the necessary conditions for the\n\nallotment of the industrial plots in question.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(49 of 64)                       [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n3.2.12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat the Industrial Area was planned with 333 plots and the\n\nprocess of allotment was started in the year 2005; whereafter, the\n\nallotment    was   done     in    a     phased       manner;      the   necessary\n\ndocuments, as required were; (a) Title Proof such as allotment\n\nletter/patta (if the industry is situated within the municipal area)\n\nand   jamabandi     (in   case     of    industry       is   situated   upon   the\n\nagricultural land); (b) Electricity bill of the present / earlier time;(c) Affidavit that the industry has already been closed down;(d) In\n\ncase of tenant, the rent agreement and the undertaking of owner\n\nto the effect that he will not claim the plot in future; (e) Clearance\n\nissued by the Pollution Board.3.2.13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that\n\nafter a perusal of the applications of the petitioners, many\n\ndeficiencies were found in the aforesaid documents i.e. the\n\nElectricity bill indicated that the connection was pertaining to the\n\ndomestic     category / duplicate bill, lack of pollution board\n\ncertificate, title / patta of the land issued after the year 2004 etc.;\n\nand in some cases, there was no existence of the industry in year\n\n2004. Therefore, the petitioners were not eligible for allotment of\n\nthe industrial plots in question.3.2.14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat in the order dated 02.04.2004, the Hon'ble High Court (In\n\nS.B.C.W.P.    No.1186/2010)           observed         that,     "The   Allotment\n\nCommittee     is   directed to consider the applications of                    the\n\npetitioners afresh for allotment of existing plots in industrial area,\n\npunayata, Pali objectively while taking into consideration the(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(50 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\ndocumentary      proof      submitted         by    the     petitioners     and     pass\n\nreasoned    order      in   this    regard".          Therefore,    the      Allotment\n\nCommittee were duly powered to pass the impugned orders, after\n\ndue deliberation, and thus, the impugned action of the respondent\n\nis justified in law.3.2.15. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that\n\nthe Allotment Committee passed the impugned orders, after duly\n\nconsidering     the     individual        application,         examining      all    the\n\ndocuments submitted by the petitioners as well as after affording\n\nan adequate opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and\n\nothers; therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders\n\npassed by the respondent.3.2.16. It was further submitted that each and every case was\n\ndealt with individually and the documents as well as each and\n\nevery aspect of the matter were taken into consideration by the\n\nAllotment Committee; only thereafter, the applications of the\n\nineligible industrial units, including the petitioners, were rejected\n\nvide the impugned orders.4.    As regards the second issue i.e. Certain industrial units,\n\nwhose names, neither figured in the survey list, nor they\n\nhave been considered for allotment of the industrial plot(s)\n\nin question also, it is informed that the factual matrix, as set out\n\nhereinabove qua the first issue, being substantially same, needs\n\nno separate narration in the present judgment.\n\n4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that numerous\n\ntextile industries were in operation prior to 2004 in the municipal(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(51 of 64)                        [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\narea of Balotra/Pali, and in pursuance of the directions issued by\n\nthe Hon'ble Court, all the said existing industries were closed\n\ndown       including    the    industries       of     the    petitioners;      in    such\n\ncircumstances,         the    petitioners      were      clearly     entitled    to    get\n\nallotment of the industrial plot in the industrial area, by way of\n\nshifting/relocation and till such claim of the petitioners or any\n\nother individual Firm is pending, there is no justification available\n\nwith the respondent authorities to make allotment of the plots to\n\nanyone else.4.1.2.        Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted\n\nthat the respondent-RIICO issued a notification dated 09.12.2011\n\nand    the    same      was      published        in    the     newspaper,       inviting\n\napplications along with relevant documents from the industrial\n\nunits established prior to the year 2004 and whose names were\n\nnot mentioned in the survey list prepared by the concerned\n\nmunicipal body. In pursuance of such notification, total 132\n\napplications were received by the respondent. While the said\n\napplications remained pending for three years, the respondent\n\nvide communication dated 18.06.2014 rejected the applications in\n\nits meeting dated 09.06.2014.4.1.3.        Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted\n\nthat the different survey lists were prepared by the different\n\nauthorities, whereupon certain industrial units raised objections\n\nregarding the genuineness and correctness of the said survey\n\nlist(s).(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(52 of 64)                     [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n4.1.4      Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted thatthe impugned communication dated 09.10.2014 issued by the\n\nrespondents without giving opportunity of hearing, and thus, no\n\njustification was found in the impugned order. It was further\n\nsubmitted that the petitioners-industries were found in non-\n\nconforming areas prior to the year 2004, but despite of the same,\n\nthe respondent did not consider their applications.\n\n4.1.5.     Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted\n\nthat the respondents were not justified in law, in rejecting the\n\napplications of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plots in\n\nplace of the industrial units already closed down, in pursuance of\n\nthe directions of the Hon'ble Court.4.1.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that\n\nbefore taking the impugned decision of rejection of the petitioners'\n\napplications in the meeting headed by the Hon'ble Minister\n\nconcerned, the petitioners were not given an opportunity of\n\nhearing; furthermore, such decision was decision without duly\n\nappreciating the merits         of    individual       application; thus, the\n\nimpugned decision is also violative of the principles of natural\n\njustice and suffers from non-application of mind.\n\n4.1.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nthe petitioners' case is supported by documentary evidence, which\n\nclearly reveals that the petitioners' unites were in operation in the\n\nnon-conforming area of Balotra/Pali prior to 2004; the said units\n\nwere closed down in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order,\n\nwhereby, the Hon'ble Court in unequivocal terms directed the(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(53 of 64)                          [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nrespondent to shift the industries falling in non-conforming area to\n\na new industrial area to be established by the respondents. Thus,\n\non that count also, the impugned orders are unjustified in law.\n\n4.1.8.    Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted as per\n\nthe   respondent's   own      stand,      the     scrutiny       of   131    pending\n\napplications and decision thereon is to be taken by the Committee\n\nheaded by the District Collector. Such applications were received\n\nin pursuance of the notification so issued by the respondent itself.\n\nAs per learned counsel, it was also assured to the petitioners that\n\nthe individual application shall be considered on its own merit.\n\nHowever, the respondents have changed their stand and the\n\napplications were rejected vide the impugned orders, which is not\n\nsustainable in the eye of law.4.1.9.    Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nthe respondents themselves knowing fully well that there were\n\ndiscrepancies in the survey list; in pursuance of the notification\n\nissued in the year 2011, 132 applications were received duly\n\nsupported    by documentary           evidence,        including      that   of   the\n\npetitioners; but despite the same, the impugned orders were\n\npassed by the respondent, which is not justified in law.\n\n4.1.10.   Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that\n\nthe present case is a glaring example of hostile discrimination, on\n\ncount of the fact that various other incumbents whose names\n\nwere not mentioned in the survey list and filed the application at a\n\nlater stage, their cases were dealt with in pursuance of the\n\nrepresentations submitted by them; however, the same treatment(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(54 of 64)                       [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nwas not meted out to the other similarly situated incumbents,\n\nincluding the present petitions; thus, on that count also, the\n\nimpugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside.\n\n4.1.11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that\n\nthe petitioners have also submitted their applications for allotment\n\nof the plot in pursuance of the notification issued in the year 2011,\n\nbut the respondent did not taken any decision thereon; now the\n\nrespondents are charging new rates, for no delay on the part of\n\nthe petitioners. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned action\n\non the part of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law.\n\n4.1.12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf\n\nof the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions\n\nmade on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the District\n\nCollector in its individual capacity has directed issuance of the\n\nadvertisement in the year 2011, thereby inviting applications from\n\nthe applicants, even if their names have not been mentioned in\n\nthe   survey    list.     Pursuant       to    the     said     advertisement,    132\n\napplications were received, but none of the applicants have\n\ndeposited      the      requisite      fee/application          fee   alongwith   the\n\napplications.4.1.13.     Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted\n\nthat the decision to call for applications even from the incumbents\n\nnot having their name in the survey list, has not been taken by\n\nthe Allotment Committee, nor any approval of the same has been\n\ntaken from the Industries Department.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(55 of 64)                    [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n4.1.14. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that\n\nthe issues in question were discussed in a meeting of a high level\n\ncommittee in the year 2015, under the Chairmanship of the\n\nHon'ble Minister of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,\n\ncomprising also the Managing Director, RIICO, District Collector\n\nand various others officers, and in the said meeting, a conscious\n\ndecision was taken that since the industries, including the\n\npetitioners, were not found in the survey being conducted by the\n\nmunicipal body concerned, therefore, their applications cannot be\n\nconsidered for allotment of the industrial plots in question.\n\nTherefore, as per learned counsel, it was decided in the said\n\nmeeting to reject and return all the 132 applications so received in\n\npursuance of the advertisement in question.4.1.15     It was further submitted that the decision to quash the\n\nsaid process of allotment, which was initiated in pursuance of the\n\nadvertisement dated 09.12.2011, and the action of rejecting 132\n\napplications was taken in the meeting dated 08.06.2015, while the\n\npetitioners did not challengethe said decision, and thus, the wit\n\npetitions are not maintainable.4.1.16 It was also submitted that the survey list was a mandatory\n\nprecondition and the petitioners' names were not included in\n\nsurvey list, and therefore, the rejection of the said application is\n\ncompletely justified in law.5.   Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the\n\nrecord of the case.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(56 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n5.1. As regards the first issue, pertaining to                                   BalotraDistrict, this Court observes that after the aforementioned order\n\nof the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court ,the industrial units in\n\nBalotra were shifted at a distant place from the residential areas;\n\nthe municipal body of Balotra conducted the necessary survey,\n\nwhereafter the respondent-RIICO issued the advertisement dated\n\n14.10.2010 and invited applications for allotment of industrial\n\nplots in question and the said advertisement was published in the\n\nnewspaper. The petitioners applied along with documents for\n\nallotment of the industrial plots in question. The respondent-RIICO\n\nvide the impugned orders rejected the applications of the\n\npetitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not filed all the\n\nrequisite documents.5.2. This Court further observes that the respondent-RIICO\n\nclearly mentioned the list of the all necessary documents, which\n\nwere required to be submitted by the concerned industrial units,\n\nincluding      the   present        petitioners,         in    pursuance         of     the\n\nadvertisement in question; the list of the documents, pertaining to\n\nthe period prior to 02.04.2004, as mentioned in advertisement,\n\nwere as follows:-"1- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ ds fctyh ds fcy fd lR;kfir izfrfyfiA\n\n    2- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ ds jkt- iznw"k.k fu;a=.k e.My ds }kjk\n    voS/k iznwf"kr bdkbZ;ksa dks tkjh fd;s x;s uksfVl dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA\n    3- bdkbZ;ksa ds Hkwfe LokfeRo ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh izekf.kr o\n    lR;kfir izfrfyfiA\n    4-      fnukad   02-04-04        ls     iwoZ   dh      LFkkfir   bdkbZ;ksa    dks\n    fdjk;snkj@ykbZlsUl/kkjh }kjk pyk;s tkus ls lacaf/kr fdjk;sukes@ykbZlsUl\n    dh izekf.kr lR;kfir izfrfyfiA(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(57 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n    5- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ dh bdkbZ;ksa dh cSysUl 'khV dh\n    izfrfyfi@bUde    VsDl    fjVZu    dh    izfrfyfi@lsy      VsDl   ewY;kadu   dh\n    izfrfyfi@dz;&foØ; ds fcy dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA\n    6- LFkkfir bdkbZ ds nqdku vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathdj.k dh lR;kfir\n    izfrfyfiA\n    7- LFkkfir bdkbZ ds vkWfMV fjiksVZ dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA\n    8- LFkkfir bdkbZ dks bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksxk fd vkS|ksfxd\n    {ks= esa f'kQ~V gksus ds ckn esa iwoZ esa LFkkfir bdkbZ esa dksbZ vkS|ksfxd\n    dk;Z ugha d:axkA vkSj vxj d:axk rks esjk vkS|ksfxd {ks= esa vkoafVr\n    Hkw[k.M fujLr djus dk vf/kdkj lfefr dk gksxk rFkk bdkbZ }kjk iwoZ\n    dh LFkkfir bdkbZ can djus dh QksVks izLrqr djuh gksxhA"5.3. This Court also observes that the petitioners have not\n\nsubmitted the all the documents as required, and even in certain\n\ndocuments so filed, the same suffered from many deficiencies i.e.\n\nthe some electricity bills submitted by the petitioners, were\n\npertaining to the period after 02.04.2004, and that, the same\n\nwere the bills pertaining to domestic connection, which were not\n\npermissible, as per the advertisement in question.\n\n5.4. This Court further observes that in some cases, the\n\npetitioners have also not produced the relevant show cause\n\nnotice/certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, as per the\n\nadvertisement in question.5.5. This Court also observes that in some of the case, the\n\npetitioners did not produce any Balance Sheet/Income Tax Returns\n\nfor proving that they are eligible for allotment of the industrial\n\nplots in question.5.6. This Court further observes that the aforementioned list of\n\ndocuments was mandatory in nature and the industrial units,(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(58 of 64)                        [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nincluding   the   petitioners      were      required        to   submit   all   the\n\ndocuments, as per the advertisement in question; thus, even if a\n\nsingle document is not submitted, then the concerned industrial\n\nunits, including the petitioner, cannot claim allotment of the\n\nindustrial plots in question. This Court also observes that in the\n\npresent case, not a single petitioner herein has made the\n\nmandatory compliance with regard to the aforementioned list of\n\ndocuments; even in the documents so submitted, 2-3 deficiencies\n\nwere found individually in each of the case.5.7. This Court also observes that after a perusal of the material\n\nproduced by the petitioners and the respondents in each of the\n\npetitions, individually, there is not a single case, which comes\n\nunder the category of eligible industrial units, so as to get the\n\nallotment of the industrial plots in question.\n\n5.8. This Court further observes that the Allotment Committee\n\nincluded the District Collector Barmer, Sub-Divisional Officer,\n\nBalotra, General Manager, DIC, Barmer, Regional Officer, Pollution\n\nControl Board, Commissioner Municipal Board, Balotra, Unit Head\n\nRIICO Balotra and other members.5.9. This Court also observes that the applications of the\n\npetitioners were duly reviewed by the Allotment Committee\n\ncomprising the Divisional Commissioner and the District Collector,\n\nin an objective manner, and after considering the claim and the\n\nobjections, the impugned orders were passed; therefore, it is clear\n\nthe Allotment Committee not biased towards any industrial unit,\n\nand thus, the impugned orders so passed are justified in law.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(59 of 64)                    [CW-1311/2022]6.   Having regard to the first issue pertaining to Pali\n\nDistrict, this Court observes that the respondent-RIICO, Pali\n\nissued the advertisement dated 11.05.2009 inviting applications\n\nfor allotment of the industrial plots in question at the new and\n\nappropriately distant location for establishing the industries in\n\nquestion, in lieu of shifting of the industrial units. The petitioners\n\nfiled the applications with all relevant documents before the\n\nrespondents for allotment of the industrial plots in question; the\n\nrespondents, vide the minutes of the dated 29.9.2009 and\n\n05.11.2009, rejected the said applications. Thereafter, the order\n\nfor re-consideration of the applications was passed by the Hon'ble\n\nCourt, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The\n\nrespondents vide order dated 19.02.2021 rejected the said\n\napplication of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondents\n\nproceeded to issue an e-auction notification on 03.03.2021 and\n\nalso initiated the process for allotment of the plots of Punayata\n\nIndustrial Area by way of auction.6.1. This Court further observes that the list of the documents as\n\nmentioned in the advertisement in question, were as follows:"1- ftl d`f"k Hkwfe ij m|ksx LFkkfir Fkk mlds [kljk ua- dh\n      tekcanh dh udy ,oa ;fn uxjikfydk }kjk vkoafVr Hkwfe ij\n      LFkkfir Fkk rks uxjikfydk dk Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk izek.k i=A\n      2- o"kZ 2004 ls iwoZ ds fo|qr dusD'ku fcy] fo|qr laca/k ,oa\n      mRiknu ds vU; nLrkostksa izek.kA\n      3- vkosnudrkZ }kjk iwoZ esa LFkkfir vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ dks d`f"k\n      Hkwfe@uxj ikfudk dh Hkwfe ls gVk;k tk pqdk gS bl vk'k; dk\n      'kiFk i= ¼:i;s 10@& ds ukWu T;wfMf'k;y LVkEi isij ij uksVsjh ls\n      lR;kfir½(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(60 of 64)                                [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n       4- ;fn fdlh fdjk;snkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M ds vkoaVu gsrq\n       vkosnu i= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd Hkwfe Lokeh dks vkS|ksfxd {ks=\n       iquk;rk esa Hkw[k.M dh vko';drk ugha gS vkSj uk gh iwoZ esa izkIr\n       fd;k gS vkSj uk gh Hkfo"; esa ekax djsxkA"6.2. This Court also observes that in some of the petitions, the\n\npetitioners do not have non-domestic electricity connection, even\n\nin some of the cases where domestic electricity bill was produced,\n\nthe same pertained to the period after 2004, and thus, do not fall\n\nunder the criteria lay down in the advertisement in question. This\n\nCourt further observes that in some of the cases, handwritten\n\nelectricity bills were produced, which were not authentic and\n\nreliable.6.3. This Court further observes that in some of the cases, the\n\nindustrial plots in question were already allotted to the tenants by\n\nthe Allotment Committee, after due review of the applications, and\n\nnow the landlord, cannot demand for dual allotments, as the same\n\nis not permissible under the law.6.4. This   Court       also    observes        that     the        list   of    documents\n\nmentioned in the advertisement in question was mandatory to be\n\ncomplied with and each and every documents mentioned in the\n\nadvertisement      in     question        required        to    be         submitted      for\n\nconsideration of the case for allotment of the industrial plots in\n\nquestion.6.5. This Court also observes that all the documents mentioned in\n\nthe advertisement in question were necessary to be submitted and\n\nthe same was also held by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble\n\nCourt in case of Vinayak Febtax Vs RIICO Ltd. Anr (S.B.Civil(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(61 of 64)                           [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nWrit Petition No. 769/2010, Other Connected Matter,\n\ndecided on 25.03.2019), relevant portion whereof is reproduced\n\nas hereunder:"The    writ   petitions    are    disposed       of   with      the   following\n    directions:-1. The petitioners are directed to file fresh applications\n    alongwith all necessary documents to prove their eligibility for\n    their respective claim seeking allotment of an industrial plot\n    and deposit the requisite charges on or before 15.05.2019.4. While adjudging the entitlement of the applicants, the\n    Allotment Committee shall act strictly in accordance with law\n    and shall take into account the following factors:i. Preferably the name of the industry is included/shown in any\n    of the survey lists prepared by the State Authorities including\n    the list prepared by the District Industries Centre, Pali.\n\n    ii. The applicant has submitted the relevant documents\n    as required in the advertisement issued by the RIICO for\n    making allotment of industrial plot.iii. The applicant has produced the documentary proof\n    showing the existence and functioning of the industry\n    prior to passing of the judgment of this Court in the year\n    2004."6.6. This Court further observes that after a perusal of the\n\nmaterial produced in each of the cases by the petitioners as well\n\nas the respondents, it becomes crystal clear that not a single\n\npetitioner has submitted the complete requisite documents,\n\nstrictly as per the advertisement in question, and thus, they were\n\nrightly declared as ineligible for allotment of the industrial plots in\n\nquestion.6.7. This Court also observes that the Allotment Committee,\n\ncomprising,    amongst         others,     the     various         officers   from     the(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(62 of 64)                     [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nGovernment Departments, have made due consideration and\n\nreview of the documents so submitted by the petitioners, prior to\n\npassing of the impugned orders,                   and thus, this Court is\n\ncompletely satisfied that is nothing on record, which could show\n\nany arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned action of the\n\nrespondents.6.8. This Court further observes that the Survey was conducted\n\nby the concerned municipal body, whereafter, the Allotment\n\nCommittee was constituted, which has decided to call the\n\napplications along with the aforementioned relevant documents of\n\nall the industrial units, whose names were shown in the survey\n\nlist, for due consideration, examination and review.\n\n6.9. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated\n\n09.12.2011 has been issued whereby the applications were invited\n\nfrom the individual industrial units, whose names were not\n\nmentioned   in   the   survey       list;    in   pursuance    of   the   said\n\nadvertisement, 132 applications were received by the respondents\n\nand thereafter the said applications were rejected by the\n\nrespondent vide the impugned communication.\n\n6.10. This Court further observes that firstly, the Allotment\n\nCommittee issued advertisement dated 14.10.2010 for inviting\n\napplications along with relevant documents for allotment of the\n\nindustrial plots in question and thereafter, again issued the\n\nadvertisement dated 01.11.2011 in the local newspaper; yet\n\nthereafter, the applications along with relevant documents were\n\ninvited from the industrial units, whose names were included in(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(63 of 64)                         [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\nthe   survey   list,    but     then      under       some         misconception   an\n\nadvertisement dated 09.12.2011 has been issued, whereby the\n\napplication were invited from the industrial units, whose names\n\nwere not included in the survey list.6.11. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated\n\n09.12.2011 was quashed on 08.06.2015, in the Committee\n\nmeeting held under the Chairmanship of Minister of Industries,\n\nJaipur, Principal Secretary, Industries & MD, RIICO, District\n\nCollector, Barmer and other officers, while stating that the names\n\nof the industries mentioned therein did not figure in the survey\n\nlist, and therefore, cannot be considered for allotment of the\n\nindustrial plots in question.6.12. This Court further observes that the precondition for\n\nconsideration for allotment of the industrial plots in question, was\n\nthat the name of the industries must figure in the survey list,\n\nprepared in pursuance of the conducted by the concerned\n\nmunicipal body; but since the said condition was not fulfilled in\n\ncase of the petitioners, therefore, their applications for the\n\nallotment in question stood rejected.6.13. This Court also observes that the survey by the concerned\n\nmunicipal body was the important component for the purpose of\n\nshifting of the industries in question, and that, for consideration\n\nfor allotment of the industrial plots in question, the concerned\n\nindustries must have their existence in the non-conforming areas;therefore, due since such pre-condition was not duly fulfilled by\n\nthe petitioners herein, which resulted into non-inclusion of their(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:12 AM)(64 of 64)                        [CW-1311/2022]\n\n\n                                   names in the survey list in question, therefore, the impugned\n\n                                   action of the respondents is justified in law.6.14. This Court further observes that the advertisement dated\n\n                                   09.12.2011 was not under consideration as the same was\n\n                                   rejected/returned in meeting dated 08.06.2015 by the Committee,\n\n                                   which comprised of members of higher posts, from various\n\n                                   Government Departments,             and therefore it cannot be said that\n\n                                   any arbitrary and illegal action was taken by the said Committee.7.    Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into\n\n                                   the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a\n\n                                   fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present\n\n                                   petitions.8.    Consequently,     the     present       petitions       are   dismissed.   All\n\n                                   pending applications stand disposed of.(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.SKant/-(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:17:13 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)