Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maha Arihant Finishing vs Rajasthan State Industrial ... on 31 August, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2022
Rajat Sales Agency, Through Its Proprietor Vimal Kumar S/o Shri
Loon Chad Salecha, Aged About 42 Years By Caste Oswal,
Resident Of Jerla Road, Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,
Jodhpur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,
Through Chairman And Managing Director.
3. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed
Road, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1219/2022
Surya Texcom, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Samta Devi Wife Of
Shri Naresh Kumar, By Caste Jain, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Khasra No. 19, Jerla Road, Balotra, District-Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,
Jodhpur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,
Through Chairman And Managing Director.
3. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed
Road, Balotra, District- Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1314/2022
Maha Bajrang Processors, Through Its Proprietor Narendra
Lalwani Son Of Shri Narayan Lal Sindhi, By Caste Sindhi Lohana,
Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Nayapura, Ward No. 8,
Balotra, District- Barmer.
(2 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Divisional Commissioner,
Jodhpur.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,
Through Chairman And Managing Director.
3. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Khed
Road, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1532/2022
Saraf Dyeing Company, Through Its Proprietor Jugal Kishore
Saraf S/o Shri Rajaram, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of
Agarwal Colony, Behind Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Balotra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2258/2022
Sanwal Ram S/o Shri Tulsa Ram, Aged About 69 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 15, Gandhipura, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.)
Proprietor Of Santosh Dhupayi Works.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector,
Barmer (Raj.).
2. Rajasthan Industries And Investment Corporation Limited,
(3 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Through Its Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Manager, Rajasthan Industries And Investment
Corporation, Kher Road, Industrial Area, Balotra, Barmer.
4. Municipal Council, Through Its Commissioner, Jodhpur
Road, National Highway 112, Balotra, Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261/2022
Mahadadaji Industries, Through Its Proprietor Omprakash S/o
Shri Mehar Chand Khatri, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of
Hinglaz Street, Gali No. 2, Ward No. 23, Balotra, District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2264/2022
Harish Peding Works, Through Its Proprietor Shri Kanhaiyalal S/o
Shri Lekhraj Khatri, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ward No.
23 Bal Vidhya Mandi, Mahadev Colony, Balotra, District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
(4 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2300/2022
Manju Processing House, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Manju Devi
W/o Shri Satyanarayan, Aged About 47 Years, Ward No. 7, Near
Ramdhan Office, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico),
Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee, Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2563/2022
Geeta Process, Address - 99, Main Mandiya Road, Pali Through
Its Proprietor Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Nathmal Ji, Aged About 65
Years, B/c Ghanchi, R/o 2, Palliwalo Ka Bass, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corp. Ltd.,
Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
(5 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5449/2021
M/s. Rishabh Dying Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri
Gyanendra Kumar S/o Shri Udayraj Ji, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o 27 Jhuron Ka Bas, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Raj. State Industrial Deve. And Investment Cor. Ltd.,
(Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited,
(Riico) , Pali.
3. The District Collector Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6069/2021
Sumit Process, 41, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj). Through Its
Proprietor Smt. Shankuntla W/o Amar Chand Jain, Age 67
Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 41M Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Invest. Corp. Ltd.,
Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udhyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
5. M/s Riico Prints, A-58, Sumerpur Road, Industrial Area,
Pali. Through Proprietor Haji Mohd. S/o Ahmed, By Caste
Chhipa Muslim, R/o A-88, Chhipo Ka Hethla Baas, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6135/2021
(6 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
M/s. Vikram Textile Mils, Through Shri Trilok Chand S/o Shri
Meetha Lal Jain Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of B-5, Sidhi
Vinayak Complex, Marudhar Nagar, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Corporation Limited, Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corporation
Limited, Iti Road Pali.
3. The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Iti
Road Pali.
4. The Land Allotment Committee, Through Its Chairman,
District Collector, Pali, The Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Corporation Limited.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6351/2021
Bhurji Dyeing, Address A/62, Sumerpur Road Industrial Area,
Pali. Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Shabana W/o Shri Umar
Farooq Ji, Age 41 Years, By Caste Chhipa Musalman, Presently
R/o 62-C, Jama Maszid Road, District- Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marga, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Riico, Pali.
4. The District Industries Center, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6354/2021
(7 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
M/s. Hazi Mohammed, S/o Shri Gafoor Ji Chhipa Address A-28,
Sumerpur Road, Pali. Through Its Proprietor, Shri Hazi
Mohammed S/o Shri Gafoor Ji, Age 71 Years, By Caste Chhipa
Musalman, R/o 31, Chhipo Ka Hathela Bas, District- Pali (Raj.)
Through Power Of Attorney Mohammad Ismail S/o Shri Hazi
Mohammed, Age 53 Years, R/o 31, Chhipo Ka Hetla Bas, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marga, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Riico, Pali.
4. The District Industries Center, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6474/2021
K.b. Fab Tax, 41, Bada Bas, Pali Marwar (Raj.) (Huf Firm)
Through Its Karta Amarchand Samdariya S/o Shri Heera Lal Ji,
Age 67 Years, By Caste Samdariya, R/o 41, Bada Bas, Pali
Marwar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager Cum Member Secretary.
5. M/s Memuna Mohd Hussain, Through Proprietor Shri
Noor Mohd. S/o Shi Mohd. Hussain, R/o 13, Busi Ki Gali,
Pyara Chowk, District Pali.
(8 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6475/2021
M/s Classic Fabrics, Address A/62, Sumerpur Road Industrial
Area, Pali. Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Aamana W/o Shri
Fareed Mohd., Age 84 Years, R/o 62 Juma Maszid Road, District
Pali (Raj.) Power Of Attorney Mohd. Saleem Chhipa S/o Shri
Fareed Mohd, Age 48 Years, R/o 62 Juma Maszid Road, District
Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Riico, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6790/2021
M/s. Shantilal Rajendra Kumar, B-2 Tilak Nagar, Pali Through Its
Properietor, Rajendra Sancheti S/o Shri Premrajji, Aged About
51 Years, R/o B-2 Tilak Nagar Mahaveer Nagar, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Corp.
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment Corporation
Limited, Iti Road Pali.
3. The Regional Manager, The Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Iti
Road Pali.
4. The Land Allotment Committee, Through Its Chairman
District Collector, Pali The Rajasthan State Industrial
(9 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Development And Corporation Limited.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9975/2021
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 55
Years, R/o College Road, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali.
3. Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9981/2021
Bhanwar Lal S/o Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 55 Years,
College Road, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corp. Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico) Pali.
3. Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman The District Collector, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994/2021
Narayan Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 50
Years, College Road, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
(10 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corp Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Investment Corporation
Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali.
3. Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12208/2021
Khivraj Amarchand Gadiya, Ramlila Maidan, Pali (Raj.), Through
Its Proprietor, Gotam Chand Gadiya S/o Shri Amar Chand Ji,
Age 64, By Caste Jain, R/o Veer Durga Das Nagar, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd.,
Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13675/2021
M/s Chippa Abdul Gani Abdul Gafurji, Through Its Proprietor
Mohd. Yasin S/o Shri Abdul Gafurji, Age 78 Years, R/o 43,
Rangnia Mohalla, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
(11 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13693/2021
M/s. Ganesh Finishing, Address Agarwal Lane, Sindhi Colony,
Pali Through Its Partners - 1. Shri Rang Nath Bajaj S/o Shri
Gordhan Ji, Age 51 Years, By Caste Bajaja, 2. Smt. Sushila
Bajaj W/o Shri Gordhan Ji, Age 71 Years, By Caste Bajaja, Both
R/o 18, Bikaneria Ka Bas, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4895/2022
M/s Ramjan Desizing, Through Its Proprietor, Ramjaan S/o Shri
Mohd. Iqbal, Age 40 Years, By Caste Chhipa, R/o 105, Badi
Maszid Ke Peeche, Pyara Chowk, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
(12 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali Through General
Manager Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16361/2022
Mehta Dyeing Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sampat
Raj Bhandari S/o Shri Sohranraj Bhandari, R/o F-1-50, Mandia
Raod, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), District Pali.
3. The Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3013/2023
M/s Mahendra Prints, Through Its Proprietor Mahendra Kumar
Jain S/o Shri Paras Mal Jain, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 9,
Vardhman Nagar, Pali Marwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali, District Pali.
3. Land Allotment Committee, Through District Collector
Pali, District Pali.
----Respondents
(13 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3783/2021
Momin Dying Company, Through Its Proprietor Farid
Mohammad S/o Shri Hussain Ji , B/c Musalman, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Madina Masjid Ke Pas, Ward No. 17, Balotra,
District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman And Managing
Director Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Khed
Road, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6272/2021
Madina Dying Works, Through Its Proprietor Yusuf Ali S/o
Shri Hazi Mohammed, B/c Musalman, Aged About 71 Years,
R/o Marwar Hardware, Khed Road, Old U.p. Center Gali,
Balotra, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman And Managing
Director Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Ltd. Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Ltd., Khed
Road, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10335/2021
Govind Ram S/o Bhura Ram Choudhary, Aged About 45
(14 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Years, College Road, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corp Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali.
3. Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2341/2022
M/s Mohd Khwaja Dyeing Company, Through Its
Proprietor Jamaludeen S/o Mangu Deen, Aged About 53
Years, Resident Of Near Lalji Ka Than, Ward No. 17,
Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Kher Road, Industrial
Area, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2011
Parasmal
----Petitioner
Versus
(15 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
State Of Raj. And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11443/2011
Mohd. Imran
----Petitioner
Versus
State Collector Barmer And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11534/2011
Sona Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Collector Barmer And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13162/2012
M/s. Mohd. Yunush Dyeing Works
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13163/2012
M/s. Mayur Madhavi Mills
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13164/2012
Niraj Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj. And Ors
----Respondent
(16 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2594/2014
Sanwal Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3526/2015
M/s Man Ganga Dying Company
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. State Indu. Deve. And Inv. And Anr.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15331/2017
M/s Arafat Textiles, Balotra, District Barmer Through
Manager, Imran S/o Shri Shabir, Resident Of Main Bazar,
Balotra Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Riico, Kher Road, Industrial Area,
Balotra, District Barmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15340/2017
M/s Tak Textiles, Through Its Proprietor Imran S/o Shri
Shabir, Resident Of Main Bazar, Balotra Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
(17 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial
Area, Balotra, District Barmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15443/2017
Ismile Khan S/o Shri Barkat Khan Chhipa, Resident Of
Lalji Ka Than, Balotra, District Barmer Proprietor Of M/s
M. Janata Textile, Jerla Road, Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial
Area, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15444/2017
M/s Rajasthan Textiles Through Proprietor Shri Alta
Ahmed S/o Noor Mohammed, Resident Of Sadar Bazar,
Khatriyon Ka Chowk, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited Riico, Kher Road, Industrial
Area, Balotra, District Barmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15600/2017
Radheyshyam Textile Through Proprietor Santosh Kumar
Sharma S/o Shri Nathu Lal Sharma, By Cast - Brahmin,
(18 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
R/o Mohini Niwas, Near Old Bus Stand, Balotra, District -
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Riico, Industrial Area, Balotra, District - Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1740/2018
M/s Parasram Fabrics, Through Its Proprietor Nand
Kishore S/o. Shri Rameshwar Lal, By Caste Agarwal, R/o.
Agarwal Colony, Near Agarsen School, Balotra, Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Manag, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Invetment Corporation Limited Riico, Balotra,
District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7272/2018
Madina Textile Through Its Proprietor Mohd. Ayub S/o
Shri Mohd. Habib, Resident Of Near Madina Masjid, Ward
No. 17, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Riico Limited, Through Its
Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
(19 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Rii, Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7275/2018
Jilani Dyeing Company Through Its Proprietor Mohd.
Hussain S/o Shri Mohd. Habib, Resident Of Near Madina
Masjid, Ward No. 17, Balotra, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited Riico, Through Its
Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Rii, Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11201/2018
M/s Mohd. Sayed Dying Company, Through Its Proprietor
Bundu Khan S/o, Usman, By Caste Musalmaan, Having
Its Office At Harizan Basti Ward No. 22, Balotra, District
Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited, (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
(20 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12023/2018
Maha Arihant Finishing, Through Its Proprietor Ashok
Kumar S/o Shri Mishri Mal Aged About 42 Years,
Rabariyon Ka Tanka No. 1, Balotra, Dist. Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited(Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajathan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, Dist. Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12092/2018
Maha Sagar Chemical, Through Its Proprietor Hastimal
S/o Shri Sagarmal, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 4, Regarpura, Dhanji I Dhani, Balotra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12118/2018
Krishna Dyeing Company, Through Its Proprietor Gautam
Chand Jain S/o Mishri Mal Jain Aged About 45 Years,
(21 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Resident Of Jerla Road, Ward No. 15, Balotra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12136/2018
Maharani Dyeing Company, Through Its Proprietor
Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Tulchha Ram, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of Mahadev Colony, Ward No. 22,
Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17397/2018
Madras Finishing Works, Proprietor Sakina Banu W/o Shri
Vali Mohd., Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Third
Crossing, Regarpura, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
(22 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur (Camp
Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17409/2018
Faird Mohd Dyeing, Proprietor Hinifa Wd/o Shri Farid
Mohd, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Panghat Road, Balotra
Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Imran S/o
Shri Sabirji, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar,
Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisiional Commissioner, Jodhpur (Camp
Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17411/2018
Reliance Dhulai Works, Through Its Proprietor Om
Prakash S/o Shri Mishri Mal Mali, R/o Gandhipura,
(23 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisiional Commissioner, Jodhpur (Camp
Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19149/2018
M/s. Lala Ram Kana Ram, Having Its Office At Opposite
Roop Ji Ka Bera, Near Shamshan Ghat, Balotra, District
Barmer, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Mohd.
Imran S/o Mohd. Sabir, Age About 34 Years, R/o Nagina
Masjid, Chatriyo Ka Morcha Panghat Road, Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through
Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2320/2022
Ramdhan Cotton Mills, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Basanti
Devi W/o Shri Raghuveer Prasad, Aged About 61 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 4, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District
(24 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment
Committee, Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3831/2013
Suryodaya Industries, Balotra
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., And An
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5101/2013
Manbhawan Dhulai Works, Balotra
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andanr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7558/2013
K.d. Process,
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andors
----Respondent
(25 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8369/2013
M/s. Ashok Kothari And Company,
----Petitioner
Versus
Raj. State Indu. Deve. And I.c. Ltd., Andors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8539/2013
Mohammad Gani
----Petitioner
Versus
State Andors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9144/2013
Gulam Rasool
----Petitioner
Versus
State And ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3177/2014
M/s Mahadev Rangai
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7504/2015
M/s Vandana Synthetics Mills
----Petitioner
Versus
Riico And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8330/2016
M/s Prem India Fabrics
----Petitioner
(26 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10046/2016
M/s. Vishal Textiles
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10305/2016
M/s. Jeetu Products
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5332/2021
M/s. Vinayak Febtek, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Vandana
Karnawat W/o Shri Rajnish Karnawat, Aged About 51
Years, R/o 1, Ahinsha Complex, Ambedkar Circle, Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Raj. State Industrial Deve. And Investment Cor.
Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited,
(Riico), Pali.
3. The District Collector Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6110/2021
1. M/s Narendra Tex Printers, Through Its Proprietor
Narendra Kumar Talesara S/o Udairaj Ji Talesara,
Aged About 53 Years, R/o 138, Mahaveer Nagar,
Pali, Rajasthan.
(27 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
2. M/s Narendra Printers, Through Its Proprietor Rakhi
Talesara W/o Narendra Kumar Talesara, Aged About
50 Years, R/o 138, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali, Rajasthan.
3. M/s Madhu Tax Mils, Through Its Proprietor Smt
Madhu Bohra W/o Pramod Kumar Bohra Aged About
45 Years, R/o 75, Jodhpuriya Bass Pali, Rajasthan.
4. M/s Akashy Finishing, Through Its Proprietor Vijay
Kishore Bohra S/o Mishrimal Bohra, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 14, Nehru Nagar, Pali, Rajasthan.
5. M/s Nakoda Industries, Through Its Proprietor Smt
Nisha Baliya W/o Mukesh Baliya, Aged About 45
Years, R/o 16, Baliyo Ka Bass, Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.
6. M/s Manak Enterprises, Through Its Proprietor
Pradeep Kumar Golcha S/o Sumer Mal Golcha, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 212, Veer Durga Das Nagar,
Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.
7. M/s Rahul Fabrics, Through Its Proprietor Sanjay
Kumar Golcha S/o Sumer Mal Golcha, Aged About
57 Years, R/o 212, Veer Durga Das Nagar, Pali, Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali.
3. District Collector, Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8407/2021
M/s Navkar Finishing, Ramlela Maidan, Pali. Through Its
Proprietor Smt. Rama Kanwari W/o Shri Dileep Kumar Ji,
Age About 59 Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 27, Bada Bas,
District Pali.
----Petitioner
(28 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corp.
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.
Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Center, Pali. Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9411/2021
Vinod Textile Mills
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.
Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali. Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2028/2022
Magan Dyeing, Through Its Manager Mahesh Lalwani S/o
Late Shri Daya Ram Lalwani, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Gandhipura, Vanarchowk, Balotra, District
Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And
(29 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment
Committee, Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10653/2023
Sonu Industries, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners -
1. Rajmal Kawad S/o Shri Vijay Raj Kawad, Age 52
Years, By Caste Jain, R/o 108, Sojatiya Bas, Pali. 2.
Vidhya Devi W/o Shri Nand Kishore, Age 67 Years, R/o
12, Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrail And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrail And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.
Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman, Allotment
Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through
General Manager Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17709/2022
Hanuman Fabrics, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its
Proprietor Saurabh Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora,
(30 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Age 40 Years, By Caste Arora, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla,
Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i.
Road, Pali.
3. The Collector Cum Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali Through
General Manger Cum Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11020/2023
Kamal Prints, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners- 1.
Manish Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora, Age 47 Years,
By Caste Arora, R/o Khatrio Ka Mohalla, Pali. 2. Ram
Niwas Jat S/o Shri Pancha Ram, Age 53 Years, R/o
Mewra, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment
Corporation Ltd., Through Its Chairman And
Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i.
Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment
Committee, Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through
General Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
(31 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10859/2023
Ganpati Process, 6, Setho Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.), Through Its
Proprietor Vinod Kumar Lodha S/o Balchand J, Age 59 Years,
By Caste Jain, R/o 6, Setho Ka Bas, Pali (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,
Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10999/2023
Nandu Dyeing, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Partners- 1.
Nand Kishore Arora S/o Shri Mohan Lal Ji Arora, Age 70 Years,
By Caste Arora, R/o 12, Khatrio Ka Mohalla, Pali. 2. Kavita
Kawad W/o Shri Sohan Ji Kawad, Age 52 Years, By Caste
Kawad, R/o Sojatiya Bas, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,
Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
(32 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11004/2023
Raju Processing Center, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its
Proprietor - Naman Arora S/o Shri Nand Kishore Arora, Age
39 Years, By Caste Arora, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road,
Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11757/2023
Shwet Shilp Industries, Shastri Nagar, Bajrang Bari, Pali,
Through Its Partners - 1. Vinod Kumar Maheshwari S/o Shri
Sawar Mal, Age 67 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 2-Kha-
10, Housing Board, Pali. 2. Smt. Soniya Arora W/o Shri
Naman Arora, Age 37 Years, R/o Khatriyo Ka Mohalla, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udyog Bhawan, Tilk Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State
Industrial And Investment Corporation Ltd., I.t.i. Road,
Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman, Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
(33 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1615/2022
Ramdhan Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sarju Kishore
Gupta S/o Shri Ramdhan Ji, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 4, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Corporation Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing
Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Cum Allotment Committee
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1470/2022
Smt. Sita Devi W/o Shri Jai Prakash Goyal, Aged About 59
Years, Ward No. 3, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer
(Raj.), Proprietor Of Shree Process.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajastha State Industrial Dev. And Investment Corp.
Limited (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
(34 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2322/2022
Hem India Mills, Through Its Proprietor Babu Lal S/o Shri
Bhiam Ram Mali, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Agarwal Colony,
Ward No. 3, Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Cor. Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2270/2022
Ramanuj Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shrawan Kumar S/
o Shri Pukhraj, Aged About 47 Years, Ward N. 7, Near
Ramdhan Office, Agarwal Colony, Balotra, District Barmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
Cor. Ltd. (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Balotra, District Barmer.
3. The District Collector Cum Allotment Committee,
Barmer.
(35 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4. The Divisional Commissioner Cum Allotment Committee,
Jodhpur (Camp Balotra).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10709/2023
Jai Hanuman Desizing, Bajrang Bari, Pali Through Its Proprietor
Varsha Arora W/o Saurabh Arora, Age 38 Years, R/o Khatriyo
Ka Mohalla, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial And Investment Corporation
Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,
Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
And Investment Corporation Ltd. I.t.i. Road, Pali.
3. The Collector-Cum-Chairman Allotment Committee,
Punayata Industrial Area, Pali.
4. The District Industries Centre, Pali, Through General
Manager-Cum-Member Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6887/2015
Mohan Lal Mandot
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11780/2021
M/s. Chopra Industries, Through Its Proprietor Shri Pukhraj
Chopra S/o Shri Ganeshmal Chopra, Aged About 72 Years, R/o
105, Mahaveer Nagar, Pali (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Raj. State Industrial Development And Investment Cor.
(36 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Ltd., Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan,
Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
(Riico), Pali.
3. Allotment Committee, Rajasthan State Industrial
Development And Investment Corporation Limited
Through Its Chairman, The District Collector, Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta with Mr. V.D. Gaur,
Mr.B.S. Sandhu, Mr. Girish Kumar
Sankhala, Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr.N.S.
Rajpurohit, Mr.Devkinandan Vyas,
Mr.Mahaveer Singh, Mr. Rahul Sharma
for Mr. Pankaj Kumar Bohra,, Mr.P.D.
Bohra, Mr. Hemant Ballani, Mr.Tushar
Moad, Mr. Sunil Vyas and Mr.Rajesh
Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Mr.Rajat
Arora, Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Mr. R.D.
Bhadu Dy.G.C., Mr. Aidan Choudhary,
Mr. Talat Bari & Mr. M.S. Purohit.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 01/08/2023, 07/08/2023, 17/08/2023,
18/08/2023, 19/08/2023 & 21/08/2023
Pronounced on 31/08/2023
1. Though the present petitions were heard separately and on
different dates, but looking into the commonality of the issues
involved in all the present petitions, notwithstanding the marginal
variation in the contextual facts, they are being decided by this
common judgment.
1.1. The instant petitions pertain to allotment of industrial plots
by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment
(37 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Corporation Limited (RIICO), in lieu of shifting of the industries, in
compliance of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this
Hon'ble Court in D.B. Writ Petition (PIL) No.2481/2002 (Mahesh
Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 02.04.2004),
whereby directions were issued for shifting of the existing
industries situated in the non-conforming areas/municipal areas of
Balotra and Pali districts (Rajasthan).
1.2. In pursuance of the same, a survey was conducted under
the directions of the concerned authorities, whereupon a survey
list was prepared showing that certain industrial units were found
functional in the non-conforming areas of Balotra and Pali districts.
Thereafter, it was decided, as a mandatory measure, that those
industrial units whose names have been mentioned in the survey
list and applies accordingly, in pursuance of the concerned
advertisement(s), shall be considered for the allotment of the
industrial plots in question, subject to mandatory production of
the documents, as mentioned in the said advertisement(s).
1.3. However, the aforementioned process, as regards the
districts of Balotra & Pali, in particular, gave rise to twin issues.
The said twin issues relating to the said districts, which fall for
consideration of this Court in the present petitions, read as under:
(a) Certain industrial units, whose names though figured in
the survey list, but have not been considered for allotment
of the industrial plot(s) in question.
(38 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
(b) Certain industrial units, whose names, neither figured
in the survey list, nor they have been considered for
allotment of the industrial plot(s) in question.
2. For the purpose of the present analogous adjudication, this
Court considers it appropriate to draw the outline thereof, by
mentioning, in the present judgment, the factual matrix pertaining
to the districts of Balotra and Pali (Rajasthan), separately;
likewise, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and
the observations of this Court, shall also be drawn separately.
2.1. However, prior thereto, it is considered appropriate to
reproduce the prayer clauses of the said two writ petitions,
covering, in sum and substance, the reliefs, as claimed in all the
instant petitions, as hereunder:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1311/2022:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Writ Petition of the petitioner may kindly be
accepted and:-
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned
rejection order dated 13.05.2017 (Annexure-18) as far as
rejection of candidature of petitioner firm for allotment of
industrial plot is question may kindly be quashed and set
aside and consequence thereof the application for allotment
of industrial plot made by the petitioner firm (Annexure-
10) may kindly be allowed and the respondent authority
R.I.I.C.O. may kindly be directed to allot the industrial plot
in favour of the petitioner firm forthwith at rate prevailing
on the date of making application.
(iii) any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deem just and proper be passed in favor of the petitioner
firm.
(39 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
(iv) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be awarded to the
petitioner firm."
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1311/2022:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this writ may kindly be allowed and by a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and
directions:
(i) The e-auction notice dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-7)
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 order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure-8) alongwith
letter dated 10.03.2021 passed by the District Collector, Pali
may also be quashed and set-aside.
(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 petitioner.
(iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just
and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be
granted.
(v) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the
petitioner."
3. To appropriately deal with the first issue i.e. (a) Certain
industrial units, whose names though figured in the survey
list, but have not been considered for allotment of the
industrial plot(s) in question, the factual matrix is being taken
from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1311/2022 (for adjudication relating to Balotra District)
and the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition
(40 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
No.5449/2021 (for adjudication relating to Pali District),
while treating the same as lead cases.
3.1. As per the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1311/2022 (for the adjudication relating to Balotra
District), the petitioner-Firm was running a small scale industry in
municipal limits of the Balotra District (Rajasthan). On count of
increasing pollution levels in Balotra, the aforementioned Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) was preferred before this Hon'ble Court,
wherein the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, on 02.04.2004,
issued certain directions; the relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced as hereunder:-
"I. The Pollution Control Board shall immediately make fresh
inspection of the Textile Processing Units at Pali and
surrounding areas and in case any of the units are found to be
creating pollution and not connected to the CETPs shall be
closed.
II. The units which are creating pollution shall adopt measures
to eliminate pollution.
III. RIICO shall set up industrial area at a suitable place
exclusively for textile processing units. The industrial area must
be located at an appropriate distance from residential areas.
RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six
months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area
from residential areas immediately thereafter.
IV. The trust shall make modification in the CETP so that the
emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed
by the Pollution Control Board.
V. The industrial units which are discharging the industrial
pollutant on the land or/and river shall be closed forthwith.
VI. The State shall employ experts to assess the damage
caused to the environment and health of the public by the
pollution created by the Units. On assessment of the damage,
(41 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
the concerned authority shall file a report in this court within a
period of eight weeks, whereupon the question of payment of
compensation by the units on the principles of polluter pays
shall be determined".
3.1.1. In compliance of the said directions, the respondent- RIICO
issued an advertisement dated 14.10.2010 and invited
applications for making allotment of the industrial plots at the new
and appropriately distant location for establishing the industries in
question, in lieu of shifting of the industrial units; the said
advertisement was published in the newspaper, wherein the list of
documents, for the purpose, was also mentioned.
3.1.2. The petitioner-Firm applied for allotment of the land under
the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 alongwith the requisite
demand draft. The respondent-RIICO vide order dated 12.09.2012
however, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground
that petitioner has not furnished certain requisite documents.
3.1.3. The petitioner thereupon, filed a various representations
against the aforesaid rejection order; whereafter the petitioner
also filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No.10936/2013) before this
Hon'ble Court, which was decided on 13.12.2021, while directing
the respondents to pass a fresh order, after duly considering the
documents so furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter, the
respondent-RIICO hold a Meeting on 13.05.2017, and drawn the
Minutes thereof, rejecting the petitioner's application on the
ground that the petitioner-Firm was not in existence at the time of
rejection, whereas the plots were lying vacant, residential colonies
(42 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
are established and other shops/godowns were running on the site
concerned.
3.1.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
impugned orders were passed by the respondent-RIICO without
giving any opportunity them.
3.1.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
on one hand, the respondent-RIICO did not voluntarily furnish the
copy of the impugned rejection orders, while on the other hand,
the industrial plots were being allotted continuously to the other
industrial units by auction.
3.1.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the
petitioners filed applications for allotment of the industrial plots in
question along with all the relevant documents mentioned in the
advertisement published by the respondent-RIICO, and therefore
the entire impugned action of the respondent is illegal and not
justified in law.
3.1.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the petitioners have the electricity connections, Pollution
Certificates, Title Documents, Balance Sheets/ Income Tax
Returns, and other documents mentioned in the advertisement
prior to the year 2004 i.e. 02.04.2004, and therefore, on that
count also, the impugned action of the respondent is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
3.1.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the
petitioners are eligible for allotment of the industrial plots in
question, as though they have produced all the relevant
(43 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
documents, but the respondent-RIICO without considering the
same passed the impugned orders.
3.1.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the Municipal Council, Balotra conducted the survey and issued
the list of the industries running in the Municipal Limits of Balotra,
and also prepared the survey report, wherein the names of the
petitioners were included, which clearly shows the existence of the
petitioners as industry in Balotra.
3.1.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
various plots are still lying vacant, but the respondent-RIICO
wishes to make fresh allotment of such plots through auction,
which cannot be permissible, because the industrial area has been
established only for the industries, which are sought to be shifted.
Therefore, as per learned counsel, the entire conduct of the
respondent-RIICO is arbitrary and against the rule of law.
3.1.11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that due deliberations,
pertaining to the applications of the petitioners for the allotments
in question, were made by the Allotment Committee comprising
the Divisional Commissioner and the District Collector, whereupon,
the Committee has recorded a specific reason that the petitioners
have not submitted the mandatory documents, and thus, they do
not fall under the criteria for allotment of the industrial plots in
question.
(44 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
3.1.12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that for the purpose of shifting of the industries in question, the
Municipal Council, Balotra conducted the survey, wherein 115
units were being found functional in non-conforming areas of
Balotra. Thereafter, the Allotment Committee was constituted and
headed by the District Collector, Balotra. The advertisement in
question was issued in the newspaper, for submission of
applications alongwith the relevant documents i.e. Electricity bills,
Notices issued by Pollution Control Board, Balance-Sheet, Income
Tax Returns, Sales Tax Valuations, Purchase & Sales Bills, Audit
Reports, Documents pertaining to ownership of land and affidavit.
3.1.13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
the entire process was completed by the Committee headed by
the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, after site inspection, and
finally, all the applications were duly considered and decided,
thereafter, the allotments of the industrial plots in question were
done.
3.1.14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the applications of the petitioners were rejected, no sole on
the ground of non-production of all the requisite documents, as
mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.12.2010, , but also, at
the time of deciding the applications of the petitioners, certain
other deficiencies, such as i.e. show cause notice of water
pollution board, electricity bill, income tax return, audit report and
other relevant documents, were found, which also were
mandatory as per the advertisement dated 14.12.2010.
(45 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
3.1.15. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
the some industrial plots in question, as were demanded by the
petitioners, were already allotted to the other industrial units, who
were duly entitled therefor, on count of submission of all the
requisite documents; apart therefrom, dual allotment of the same
industrial plots is not permissible in law.
3.1.16. It was further submitted that the final decision in the
matter of allotment was taken by the Committee headed by the
District Collector in the year 2014 as well as the Committee
headed by the Divisional Commissioner in the year 2017, and
therefore, the concurrent rejection of the applications of the
petitioners so validly made, is justified in law.
3.1.17. It was also submitted that the petitioners herein could not
show their bona fides so far as the present case is concerned,
because the documents, which were submitted by the petitioners
were not reliable and there were various deficiencies in the same;
therefore, the industrial plots in question were not allotted to
them; thus, the impugned action of the respondent-RIICO does
not suffer any legal infirmity.
3.2. As the facts pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.5449/2021 (for adjudication relating to Pali District)
would reveal, in compliance of the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 02.04.2004 in the
aforementioned PIL Petition, the respondent-RIICO, Pali issued an
advertisement dated 11.05.2009, inviting applications for making
allotments of the industrial plots, at the new and appropriately
(46 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
distant location for establishing the industries in question, in lieu
of shifting of the industrial units; the said advertisement was
published in the newspaper, wherein the list of documents, for the
purpose, was also mentioned.
3.2.1. The petitioner filed an application along with all the relevant
documents before the respondents for allotment of the industrial
plot in question, the respondents vide minutes of the meetings
dated 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009, rejected the said application.
3.2.2. The said rejection order was challenged by the petitioner
before this Hon'ble Court by preferring a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P.
1186/2010), whereupon this Hon'ble Court vide order dated
17.04.2013, directed the respondent to reconsider the application
of the petitioner. The respondents thereupon, filed a Special
Appeal before a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court; whereupon
the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 11.07.2016 remanded
the matter back to the Hon'ble Single Bench. Thereafter, the
Hon'ble Court vide order 28.08.2019, directed the respondents to
re-consider the application of the petitioner.
3.2.3. The respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2021 to the
petitioner calling upon it to produce all the relevant documents
within the seven days thereafter, in compliance whereof, the
petitioner submitted all the relevant documents. The respondent
vide order dated 19.02.2021 rejected the claim of the petitioner.
Subsequently, the respondent proceeded to issue an e-auction
notice on 03.03.2021 and also initiated the process of allotment of
plots in Punayata Industrial Area by way of auction.
(47 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
3.2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per
the documents, the petitioners being situated in a non-conforming
area prior to the year 2003-2004, they were entitled to get the
industrial plots in question; however, the respondent in any
arbitrary manner and without any reasoning passed the impugned
orders.
3.2.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
name of the petitioners were included in the survey list, prepared
in pursuance of the survey so conduced by the concerned
municipal body, and thus, they were duly entitled for the allotment
of the industrial plots in question.
3.2.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
petitioners though produce all the documents as mentioned in the
advertisement in question, but the Allotment Committee, while
completely ignoring such documents, passed the impugned
orders, which is highly illegal and unjustified in law.
3.2.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in
accordance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, and as per
the advertisement, there was no requirement of all the
documents, as required by the respondents; in case the
petitioners were able to produce any one document, they were
fully eligible for the allotment of the industrial plots in question.
3.2.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
various writ petitions was preferred before this Hon'ble Court,
wherein the Hon'ble Court directed the respondent to reconsider
the applications of the petitioners, but despite of the same, the
(48 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
respondent, in any arbitrary manner, rejected the application of
the petitioners vide the impugned orders.
3.2.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in
some of the writ petitions, the respondent allotted the industrial
plots in question to the tenant of the land, while rejecting the
applications of the landlord (petitioners), without there being any
consent for such allotment; therefore, as per learned counsel, on
that count also, the impugned action of the respondent is
unjustified in law.
3.2.10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Allotment
Committee was headed by the District Collector, and thus, the
respondent-RIICO was not the sole decision-making authority;
rather the respondent-RIICO is only one of the members of the
Allotment Committee, and therefore, the impugned orders passed
after considering all the relevant aspects of the case, are justified
in law.
3.2.11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the Allotment Committee followed the conditions, as
mentioned in the advertisement in question as well as the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel also
submitted that the Allotment Committee has considered in all 102
matters, and thereupon, as many as 90 claims have been
rejected, which did not fulfill the necessary conditions for the
allotment of the industrial plots in question.
(49 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
3.2.12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the Industrial Area was planned with 333 plots and the
process of allotment was started in the year 2005; whereafter, the
allotment was done in a phased manner; the necessary
documents, as required were; (a) Title Proof such as allotment
letter/patta (if the industry is situated within the municipal area)
and jamabandi (in case of industry is situated upon the
agricultural land); (b) Electricity bill of the present / earlier time;
(c) Affidavit that the industry has already been closed down;(d) In
case of tenant, the rent agreement and the undertaking of owner
to the effect that he will not claim the plot in future; (e) Clearance
issued by the Pollution Board.
3.2.13. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
after a perusal of the applications of the petitioners, many
deficiencies were found in the aforesaid documents i.e. the
Electricity bill indicated that the connection was pertaining to the
domestic category / duplicate bill, lack of pollution board
certificate, title / patta of the land issued after the year 2004 etc.;
and in some cases, there was no existence of the industry in year
2004. Therefore, the petitioners were not eligible for allotment of
the industrial plots in question.
3.2.14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that in the order dated 02.04.2004, the Hon'ble High Court (In
S.B.C.W.P. No.1186/2010) observed that, "The Allotment
Committee is directed to consider the applications of the
petitioners afresh for allotment of existing plots in industrial area,
punayata, Pali objectively while taking into consideration the
(50 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
documentary proof submitted by the petitioners and pass
reasoned order in this regard". Therefore, the Allotment
Committee were duly powered to pass the impugned orders, after
due deliberation, and thus, the impugned action of the respondent
is justified in law.
3.2.15. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
the Allotment Committee passed the impugned orders, after duly
considering the individual application, examining all the
documents submitted by the petitioners as well as after affording
an adequate opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners and
others; therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders
passed by the respondent.
3.2.16. It was further submitted that each and every case was
dealt with individually and the documents as well as each and
every aspect of the matter were taken into consideration by the
Allotment Committee; only thereafter, the applications of the
ineligible industrial units, including the petitioners, were rejected
vide the impugned orders.
4. As regards the second issue i.e. Certain industrial units,
whose names, neither figured in the survey list, nor they
have been considered for allotment of the industrial plot(s)
in question also, it is informed that the factual matrix, as set out
hereinabove qua the first issue, being substantially same, needs
no separate narration in the present judgment.
4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that numerous
textile industries were in operation prior to 2004 in the municipal
(51 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
area of Balotra/Pali, and in pursuance of the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Court, all the said existing industries were closed
down including the industries of the petitioners; in such
circumstances, the petitioners were clearly entitled to get
allotment of the industrial plot in the industrial area, by way of
shifting/relocation and till such claim of the petitioners or any
other individual Firm is pending, there is no justification available
with the respondent authorities to make allotment of the plots to
anyone else.
4.1.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the respondent-RIICO issued a notification dated 09.12.2011
and the same was published in the newspaper, inviting
applications along with relevant documents from the industrial
units established prior to the year 2004 and whose names were
not mentioned in the survey list prepared by the concerned
municipal body. In pursuance of such notification, total 132
applications were received by the respondent. While the said
applications remained pending for three years, the respondent
vide communication dated 18.06.2014 rejected the applications in
its meeting dated 09.06.2014.
4.1.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the different survey lists were prepared by the different
authorities, whereupon certain industrial units raised objections
regarding the genuineness and correctness of the said survey
list(s).
(52 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4.1.4 Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
the impugned communication dated 09.10.2014 issued by the
respondents without giving opportunity of hearing, and thus, no
justification was found in the impugned order. It was further
submitted that the petitioners-industries were found in non-
conforming areas prior to the year 2004, but despite of the same,
the respondent did not consider their applications.
4.1.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that the respondents were not justified in law, in rejecting the
applications of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plots in
place of the industrial units already closed down, in pursuance of
the directions of the Hon'ble Court.
4.1.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
before taking the impugned decision of rejection of the petitioners'
applications in the meeting headed by the Hon'ble Minister
concerned, the petitioners were not given an opportunity of
hearing; furthermore, such decision was decision without duly
appreciating the merits of individual application; thus, the
impugned decision is also violative of the principles of natural
justice and suffers from non-application of mind.
4.1.7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the petitioners' case is supported by documentary evidence, which
clearly reveals that the petitioners' unites were in operation in the
non-conforming area of Balotra/Pali prior to 2004; the said units
were closed down in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order,
whereby, the Hon'ble Court in unequivocal terms directed the
(53 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
respondent to shift the industries falling in non-conforming area to
a new industrial area to be established by the respondents. Thus,
on that count also, the impugned orders are unjustified in law.
4.1.8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted as per
the respondent's own stand, the scrutiny of 131 pending
applications and decision thereon is to be taken by the Committee
headed by the District Collector. Such applications were received
in pursuance of the notification so issued by the respondent itself.
As per learned counsel, it was also assured to the petitioners that
the individual application shall be considered on its own merit.
However, the respondents have changed their stand and the
applications were rejected vide the impugned orders, which is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
4.1.9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the respondents themselves knowing fully well that there were
discrepancies in the survey list; in pursuance of the notification
issued in the year 2011, 132 applications were received duly
supported by documentary evidence, including that of the
petitioners; but despite the same, the impugned orders were
passed by the respondent, which is not justified in law.
4.1.10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that
the present case is a glaring example of hostile discrimination, on
count of the fact that various other incumbents whose names
were not mentioned in the survey list and filed the application at a
later stage, their cases were dealt with in pursuance of the
representations submitted by them; however, the same treatment
(54 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
was not meted out to the other similarly situated incumbents,
including the present petitions; thus, on that count also, the
impugned orders deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4.1.11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the petitioners have also submitted their applications for allotment
of the plot in pursuance of the notification issued in the year 2011,
but the respondent did not taken any decision thereon; now the
respondents are charging new rates, for no delay on the part of
the petitioners. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned action
on the part of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.1.12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the District
Collector in its individual capacity has directed issuance of the
advertisement in the year 2011, thereby inviting applications from
the applicants, even if their names have not been mentioned in
the survey list. Pursuant to the said advertisement, 132
applications were received, but none of the applicants have
deposited the requisite fee/application fee alongwith the
applications.
4.1.13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the decision to call for applications even from the incumbents
not having their name in the survey list, has not been taken by
the Allotment Committee, nor any approval of the same has been
taken from the Industries Department.
(55 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4.1.14. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that
the issues in question were discussed in a meeting of a high level
committee in the year 2015, under the Chairmanship of the
Hon'ble Minister of Industries, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
comprising also the Managing Director, RIICO, District Collector
and various others officers, and in the said meeting, a conscious
decision was taken that since the industries, including the
petitioners, were not found in the survey being conducted by the
municipal body concerned, therefore, their applications cannot be
considered for allotment of the industrial plots in question.
Therefore, as per learned counsel, it was decided in the said
meeting to reject and return all the 132 applications so received in
pursuance of the advertisement in question.
4.1.15 It was further submitted that the decision to quash the
said process of allotment, which was initiated in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 09.12.2011, and the action of rejecting 132
applications was taken in the meeting dated 08.06.2015, while the
petitioners did not challenge the said decision, and thus, the wit
petitions are not maintainable.
4.1.16 It was also submitted that the survey list was a mandatory
precondition and the petitioners' names were not included in
survey list, and therefore, the rejection of the said application is
completely justified in law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
(56 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
5.1. As regards the first issue, pertaining to Balotra
District, this Court observes that after the aforementioned order
of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court ,the industrial units in
Balotra were shifted at a distant place from the residential areas;
the municipal body of Balotra conducted the necessary survey,
whereafter the respondent-RIICO issued the advertisement dated
14.10.2010 and invited applications for allotment of industrial
plots in question and the said advertisement was published in the
newspaper. The petitioners applied along with documents for
allotment of the industrial plots in question. The respondent-RIICO
vide the impugned orders rejected the applications of the
petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not filed all the
requisite documents.
5.2. This Court further observes that the respondent-RIICO
clearly mentioned the list of the all necessary documents, which
were required to be submitted by the concerned industrial units,
including the present petitioners, in pursuance of the
advertisement in question; the list of the documents, pertaining to
the period prior to 02.04.2004, as mentioned in advertisement,
were as follows:-
"1- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ ds fctyh ds fcy fd lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
2- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ ds jkt- iznw"k.k fu;a=.k e.My ds }kjk
voS/k iznwf"kr bdkbZ;ksa dks tkjh fd;s x;s uksfVl dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
3- bdkbZ;ksa ds Hkwfe LokfeRo ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh izekf.kr o
lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
4- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ dh LFkkfir bdkbZ;ksa dks
fdjk;snkj@ykbZlsUl/kkjh }kjk pyk;s tkus ls lacaf/kr fdjk;sukes@ykbZlsUl
dh izekf.kr lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
(57 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
5- fnukad 02-04-04 ls iwoZ dh bdkbZ;ksa dh cSysUl 'khV dh
izfrfyfi@bUde VsDl fjVZu dh izfrfyfi@lsy VsDl ewY;kadu dh
izfrfyfi@dz;&foØ; ds fcy dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
6- LFkkfir bdkbZ ds nqdku vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathdj.k dh lR;kfir
izfrfyfiA
7- LFkkfir bdkbZ ds vkWfMV fjiksVZ dh lR;kfir izfrfyfiA
8- LFkkfir bdkbZ dks bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= nsuk gksxk fd vkS|ksfxd
{ks= esa f'kQ~V gksus ds ckn esa iwoZ esa LFkkfir bdkbZ esa dksbZ vkS|ksfxd
dk;Z ugha d:axkA vkSj vxj d:axk rks esjk vkS|ksfxd {ks= esa vkoafVr
Hkw[k.M fujLr djus dk vf/kdkj lfefr dk gksxk rFkk bdkbZ }kjk iwoZ
dh LFkkfir bdkbZ can djus dh QksVks izLrqr djuh gksxhA"
5.3. This Court also observes that the petitioners have not
submitted the all the documents as required, and even in certain
documents so filed, the same suffered from many deficiencies i.e.
the some electricity bills submitted by the petitioners, were
pertaining to the period after 02.04.2004, and that, the same
were the bills pertaining to domestic connection, which were not
permissible, as per the advertisement in question.
5.4. This Court further observes that in some cases, the
petitioners have also not produced the relevant show cause
notice/certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, as per the
advertisement in question.
5.5. This Court also observes that in some of the case, the
petitioners did not produce any Balance Sheet/Income Tax Returns
for proving that they are eligible for allotment of the industrial
plots in question.
5.6. This Court further observes that the aforementioned list of
documents was mandatory in nature and the industrial units,
(58 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
including the petitioners were required to submit all the
documents, as per the advertisement in question; thus, even if a
single document is not submitted, then the concerned industrial
units, including the petitioner, cannot claim allotment of the
industrial plots in question. This Court also observes that in the
present case, not a single petitioner herein has made the
mandatory compliance with regard to the aforementioned list of
documents; even in the documents so submitted, 2-3 deficiencies
were found individually in each of the case.
5.7. This Court also observes that after a perusal of the material
produced by the petitioners and the respondents in each of the
petitions, individually, there is not a single case, which comes
under the category of eligible industrial units, so as to get the
allotment of the industrial plots in question.
5.8. This Court further observes that the Allotment Committee
included the District Collector Barmer, Sub-Divisional Officer,
Balotra, General Manager, DIC, Barmer, Regional Officer, Pollution
Control Board, Commissioner Municipal Board, Balotra, Unit Head
RIICO Balotra and other members.
5.9. This Court also observes that the applications of the
petitioners were duly reviewed by the Allotment Committee
comprising the Divisional Commissioner and the District Collector,
in an objective manner, and after considering the claim and the
objections, the impugned orders were passed; therefore, it is clear
the Allotment Committee not biased towards any industrial unit,
and thus, the impugned orders so passed are justified in law.
(59 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
6. Having regard to the first issue pertaining to Pali
District, this Court observes that the respondent-RIICO, Pali
issued the advertisement dated 11.05.2009 inviting applications
for allotment of the industrial plots in question at the new and
appropriately distant location for establishing the industries in
question, in lieu of shifting of the industrial units. The petitioners
filed the applications with all relevant documents before the
respondents for allotment of the industrial plots in question; the
respondents, vide the minutes of the dated 29.9.2009 and
05.11.2009, rejected the said applications. Thereafter, the order
for re-consideration of the applications was passed by the Hon'ble
Court, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioners. The
respondents vide order dated 19.02.2021 rejected the said
application of the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondents
proceeded to issue an e-auction notification on 03.03.2021 and
also initiated the process for allotment of the plots of Punayata
Industrial Area by way of auction.
6.1. This Court further observes that the list of the documents as
mentioned in the advertisement in question, were as follows:
"1- ftl d`f"k Hkwfe ij m|ksx LFkkfir Fkk mlds [kljk ua- dh
tekcanh dh udy ,oa ;fn uxjikfydk }kjk vkoafVr Hkwfe ij
LFkkfir Fkk rks uxjikfydk dk Hkw[k.M vkoaVu dk izek.k i=A
2- o"kZ 2004 ls iwoZ ds fo|qr dusD'ku fcy] fo|qr laca/k ,oa
mRiknu ds vU; nLrkostksa izek.kA
3- vkosnudrkZ }kjk iwoZ esa LFkkfir vkS|ksfxd bdkbZ dks d`f"k
Hkwfe@uxj ikfudk dh Hkwfe ls gVk;k tk pqdk gS bl vk'k; dk
'kiFk i= ¼:i;s 10@& ds ukWu T;wfMf'k;y LVkEi isij ij uksVsjh ls
lR;kfir½
(60 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
4- ;fn fdlh fdjk;snkj }kjk vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M ds vkoaVu gsrq
vkosnu i= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd Hkwfe Lokeh dks vkS|ksfxd {ks=
iquk;rk esa Hkw[k.M dh vko';drk ugha gS vkSj uk gh iwoZ esa izkIr
fd;k gS vkSj uk gh Hkfo"; esa ekax djsxkA"
6.2. This Court also observes that in some of the petitions, the
petitioners do not have non-domestic electricity connection, even
in some of the cases where domestic electricity bill was produced,
the same pertained to the period after 2004, and thus, do not fall
under the criteria lay down in the advertisement in question. This
Court further observes that in some of the cases, handwritten
electricity bills were produced, which were not authentic and
reliable.
6.3. This Court further observes that in some of the cases, the
industrial plots in question were already allotted to the tenants by
the Allotment Committee, after due review of the applications, and
now the landlord, cannot demand for dual allotments, as the same
is not permissible under the law.
6.4. This Court also observes that the list of documents
mentioned in the advertisement in question was mandatory to be
complied with and each and every documents mentioned in the
advertisement in question required to be submitted for
consideration of the case for allotment of the industrial plots in
question.
6.5. This Court also observes that all the documents mentioned in
the advertisement in question were necessary to be submitted and
the same was also held by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble
Court in case of Vinayak Febtax Vs RIICO Ltd. Anr (S.B.Civil
(61 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Writ Petition No. 769/2010, Other Connected Matter,
decided on 25.03.2019), relevant portion whereof is reproduced
as hereunder:
"The writ petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:-
1. The petitioners are directed to file fresh applications
alongwith all necessary documents to prove their eligibility for
their respective claim seeking allotment of an industrial plot
and deposit the requisite charges on or before 15.05.2019.
4. While adjudging the entitlement of the applicants, the
Allotment Committee shall act strictly in accordance with law
and shall take into account the following factors:
i. Preferably the name of the industry is included/shown in any
of the survey lists prepared by the State Authorities including
the list prepared by the District Industries Centre, Pali.
ii. The applicant has submitted the relevant documents
as required in the advertisement issued by the RIICO for
making allotment of industrial plot.
iii. The applicant has produced the documentary proof
showing the existence and functioning of the industry
prior to passing of the judgment of this Court in the year
2004."
6.6. This Court further observes that after a perusal of the
material produced in each of the cases by the petitioners as well
as the respondents, it becomes crystal clear that not a single
petitioner has submitted the complete requisite documents,
strictly as per the advertisement in question, and thus, they were
rightly declared as ineligible for allotment of the industrial plots in
question.
6.7. This Court also observes that the Allotment Committee,
comprising, amongst others, the various officers from the
(62 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
Government Departments, have made due consideration and
review of the documents so submitted by the petitioners, prior to
passing of the impugned orders, and thus, this Court is
completely satisfied that is nothing on record, which could show
any arbitrariness or illegality in the impugned action of the
respondents.
6.8. This Court further observes that the Survey was conducted
by the concerned municipal body, whereafter, the Allotment
Committee was constituted, which has decided to call the
applications along with the aforementioned relevant documents of
all the industrial units, whose names were shown in the survey
list, for due consideration, examination and review.
6.9. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated
09.12.2011 has been issued whereby the applications were invited
from the individual industrial units, whose names were not
mentioned in the survey list; in pursuance of the said
advertisement, 132 applications were received by the respondents
and thereafter the said applications were rejected by the
respondent vide the impugned communication.
6.10. This Court further observes that firstly, the Allotment
Committee issued advertisement dated 14.10.2010 for inviting
applications along with relevant documents for allotment of the
industrial plots in question and thereafter, again issued the
advertisement dated 01.11.2011 in the local newspaper; yet
thereafter, the applications along with relevant documents were
invited from the industrial units, whose names were included in
(63 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
the survey list, but then under some misconception an
advertisement dated 09.12.2011 has been issued, whereby the
application were invited from the industrial units, whose names
were not included in the survey list.
6.11. This Court also observes that the advertisement dated
09.12.2011 was quashed on 08.06.2015, in the Committee
meeting held under the Chairmanship of Minister of Industries,
Jaipur, Principal Secretary, Industries & MD, RIICO, District
Collector, Barmer and other officers, while stating that the names
of the industries mentioned therein did not figure in the survey
list, and therefore, cannot be considered for allotment of the
industrial plots in question.
6.12. This Court further observes that the precondition for
consideration for allotment of the industrial plots in question, was
that the name of the industries must figure in the survey list,
prepared in pursuance of the conducted by the concerned
municipal body; but since the said condition was not fulfilled in
case of the petitioners, therefore, their applications for the
allotment in question stood rejected.
6.13. This Court also observes that the survey by the concerned
municipal body was the important component for the purpose of
shifting of the industries in question, and that, for consideration
for allotment of the industrial plots in question, the concerned
industries must have their existence in the non-conforming areas;
therefore, due since such pre-condition was not duly fulfilled by
the petitioners herein, which resulted into non-inclusion of their
(64 of 64) [CW-1311/2022]
names in the survey list in question, therefore, the impugned
action of the respondents is justified in law.
6.14. This Court further observes that the advertisement dated
09.12.2011 was not under consideration as the same was
rejected/returned in meeting dated 08.06.2015 by the Committee,
which comprised of members of higher posts, from various
Government Departments, and therefore it cannot be said that
any arbitrary and illegal action was taken by the said Committee.
7. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a
fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present
petitions.
8. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
