M/S Trilok Chand Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7204 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29768-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

...

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1102/2022.

M/s Trilok Chand Parihar through proprietor Trilok Chand Parihar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, aged about 43 years, resident of Sabji Mandi, Paota, Jodhpur.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Room No. 133, Pant Krishi Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005.

2. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Regional Joint Director, Agriculture Marketing, Division, Jodhpur.

4. The Chairman, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Paota Circle, Jodhpur - 342001 (Raj.).

5. The Secretary, Kriship Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal Sabji), Near Paota Circle, Jodhpur - 342001.

6. M/s Prakash Trading Company through its proprietor Prakash Chand S/o Dayaram Ji, aged about 56 years, resident of 124, Shivsakti Nagar, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

7. M/s Arun Kumar through its proprietor Mr. Arun Singh Solanki S/o Shri Bhajan Singh Solanki, aged about 58 years, resident of Subhash Chowk, Sursagar, Jodhpur.

8. M/s Maan Singh Gehlot through its proprietor Mr. Maan Singh Gehlot S/o Kalyan Singh Gehlot, aged about 48 yers, resident of a-46, Sukhram Nagar, Sursagar, Jodhpur.

9. M/s Bhati Brothers and Company through its proprietor Mr. Laxman Bhati S/o Dhokalram Ji Bhati, aged about 38 years, resident of Hanslav Ka Bera, Nayapura, Mandore, Jodhpur.

10. M/s Indrajeet Singh & Company through its proprietor Mr. Indra Singh S/o Thanaram Ji Parihar, aged about 40 years, resident of Tilak Nagar, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

.

[2023:RJ-JD:29768-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1102/2022]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aniket Tater.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit, G.A.

Mr. Mahesh Chandra Bishnoi, G.A.

Mr. Pritam Solanki, for the private respondents.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

Judgment

14/09/2023

1. The present Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant

being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the

learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12266/2020,

whereby while disposing of the writ petition filed by the appellant,

a direction was issued to the official respondents that the name of

the appellant may be placed on the bottom of the merit list of the

candidates prepared by the respondents and if the shops after

allocation still remains for allotment, then the candidature of the

appellant for allotment of the shop shall be considered if he is

otherwise found eligible.

2. Brief facts of the case are that as per the case of the

appellant, he applied with the official respondents for allotment of

the shop in the Mandi Yard and for that purpose, he has deposited

the application fees as well as the earnest money, however,

despite that the name of the appellant has not been reflected in

the merit list published by the respondents.

3. The respondents have claimed that the appellant has never

deposited the application form for allotment of shop and,

[2023:RJ-JD:29768-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1102/2022]

therefore, his name has not been reflected in the merit list of the

eligible candidates.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking

into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by

the appellant while directing the official respondents that the

name of the appellant may be placed on the bottom of the merit

list of the eligible candidates for allotment of shops and if the

shops after still remains for allotment, then the case of the

appellant shall be considered if he is otherwise found eligible.

5. The learned Single Judge has further clarified that the

appellant shall not be granted any parity with any person with

respect to the suitability or equivalence with those persons who

are above the appellant in the merit list.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manoj Bhandari appearing on

behalf of the appellant has submitted that the clarification

aforesaid as made by the learned Single Judge may affect the

case of the appellant and the respondents may not consider the

candidature of the appellant.

7. Learned Government Advocate Mr. Loon Karan Purohit

appearing on behalf of the official respondents has submitted that

pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the

respondents Mandi Samiti has already placed the name of the

appellant on the bottom of the merit list of the eligible candidates

for allotment of the shops and if any shop, after allocation to the

more meritorious person or to the persons who are placed above

the appellant in merit list, still remains vacant, the candidature of

the appellant shall be considered for allotment of the shop if he is

[2023:RJ-JD:29768-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1102/2022]

otherwise found eligible. It is also submitted by the learned

counsel for the official respondents that the case of the appellant

shall not be affected in any manner by the clarification made by

the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the official respondents Mr. Look Karan Purohit, we are

of the opinion that no further order is required to be passed in this

special appeal. The same is, therefore, disposed of.

9. Stay Petition also stands disposed of.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

97-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)