Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
K.B. Fab Tex vs Raj. State Industrial ... on 9 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CW-1388/2017]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1388/2017
1. M/s Borad Dyeing Company, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar
Through Its Partners
2. 1/1 Amar Chand Borad S/o Late Kishan Lal Borad
3. 1/2 Shri Anand Kumar Borad S/o Late Kishan Lal Borad
4. 1/3 Smt. Indu Singhi W/o Narendra Singhi, All The Above
Named Petitioners Are Residents Of B-38 Veer Durgadas
Nagar, Pali.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Jaipur Through Chairman Cum Managing
Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Iti Road,
Pali Raj.
3. Land Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4387/2021
1. K.b. Fab Tex, Through Its Proprietor Amarchand
Samadariya S/o Shri Heera Lalji, Aged About 69 Years,
R/o 2, Mahalaxmi Palace, Tagore Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
2. Summet Proces, Through Its Proprietor Shankutla Devi
Samdariya W/o Amarchand Samadariya, Aged About 68
Years, R/o 2, Mahalaxmi Palace, Tagore Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
3. Surya Creation, Through Its Proprietor Anil Kumar
Samdariya S/o Amarchand Samadariya, Aged About 48
Years, R/o 2, Mahalaxmi Palace, Tagore Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
4. Khinivraj Amarchand Gadia, Through Its Proprietor
Gautamchand Gadiya S/o Amarchand Gadiya, Aged About
69 Years, R/o Mahalaxmi Empire, Gajanand Nagar, Pali
(Raj.)
5. Ganpati Process, Through Its Proprietor Vinod Kumar
Lodha S/o Shri Balchandji Lodha, Aged About 49 Years,
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:36:13 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-1388/2017]
R/o Sethon Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
6. Nandu Dyeing, Through Its Partner Shri Nand Kishore S/o
Mohan Lalji Arora, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 12, Gancho
Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
7. Sonu Industries, Through Its Partner Shri Rajmal Kavad
S/o Shri Vijay Rajji Kawad, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 13,
Tilak Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
8. Hanuman Fabrics, Through Its Proprietor Saurabh S/o
Shri Nand Kishore, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 208, Iscon
City, Near Old Bus Stand, Pali (Raj.)
9. Jai Hanuman Desaizing, Through Its Proprietor Smt
Varsha W/o Shri Saurabh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 12,
Khatriyon Ka Mohalla, Pali (Raj.)
10. Swet Shilp Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Vinod
Kumar S/o Sanvarmalji Maheshwari, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 1 Kh, Housing Board, Pali (Raj.)
11. Kamal Prints, Through Its Partner Ramniwas S/o
Pacharamji Jat, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 43, Shree Ji
Vihar, Bagrang Wadi, Pali (Raj.)
12. Raju Processing Center, Through Its Proprietor Naman S/o
Shri Nand Kishore, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 308, Navkar
Heights, Tagore Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
13. Sonu Textile Chemicals, Through Its Proprietor Smt.
Vidhya W/o Nand Kishore Arora, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o 12 , Gancho Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
14. Manish Process, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Dakshina
Kumbhat W/o Shri Kishanchand Kumbhat, Aged About 73
Years, R/o 3, Devji Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
15. Nemichand Mehta And Sons, Through Its Proprietor
Nemichand Mehta S/o Shambhu Malji Mehta, Aged About
78 Years, R/o 21, Birlon Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
16. Manglam Industries, Through Its Proprietor Pankaj S/o
Shri Kamal Kishore, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 41 , Shree
Ji Vihar, Bajrang Vadi, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Raj. State Industrial Development And Investment Cor.
Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:36:13 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-1388/2017]
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Pali
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. AK Babel
Mr. Rishabh Purhoit for Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
09/12/2021
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1388/2017:-
List on 07.01.2022.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4387/2021:-
The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following
relief:-
"(i) The e-auction notice dated 03.03.2021
(Annexure-6) may kindly be declared illegal and be
quashed and set aside, to the extent, it propose to
make allotment of 10 industrial plot situated in
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali;
(ii) The RIICO may kindly be restrained from making
any fresh auction of plots in the Punayat Industrial
Area, Pali;
(iii) The respondent RIICO may further be directed to
make proper compliance of the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Court in the earlier round of writ petition
and to make allotment of industrial plot to the
petitioners; "
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:36:13 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-1388/2017]
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn
attention of this Court to his reply, the relevant part of which
reads as follows:-
"The Committee consisting of around 12
Government representatives has scrutinized each and
every application so submitted by the petitioner as well
as other applicants in its meeting dated 19.02.2021.
The said committee has proceeded to take conscious
decision in relation to each such application filed in
pursuance of the directions given by the Hon'ble High
Court as well as in pursuance of the compromise
decree so passed by the learned Trial Court. After
considering the said applications, the said allotment
committee has recorded the minutes of the meeting
rejecting the applications of the petitioner and the
same does not satisfy the requirements of the
allotment laid down by the Hon'ble High Court as well
as the requirement showing any various
advertisements for allotment.
That in view of the minutes of the meeting so
recorded in the meeting dated 19.02.2021, an
individual order of rejection / refunded orders were
been passed by the answering respondent RIICO and
the same have been communicated to the petitioner.
The amount so deposited by the respective applicants
has been refunded to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was a
mistake on the part of the RIICO that individual orders could not
be communicated even though the decision of rejection was taken
in a meeting on 19.02.2021.
This Court takes note of the fact that it is the fault of the
RIICO to not have communicated the order, but it would not be
(Downloaded on 14/12/2021 at 08:36:13 PM)
(5 of 5) [CW-1388/2017]
fruitful to adjudicate the issue on merits, as there is no prayer
regarding the final order of rejection.
In light of the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition
is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final
rejection order.
All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
92-93-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
