Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S. Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim vs Rajasthan State Industrial And ... on 2 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:20074]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16185/2024

M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim, Through Its Partners-


1.   Mohammed Ysuf Son of Late Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,
     Age About 78 Years.
2.    Mohommed Sharif Son of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About
     54 Years
3.   Mohommed Harun Son of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About
     52 Years
4.   Mohommed Yunus Son of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About
     52 Years
5.    Mohommed Irfan Son of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About
     44 Years.
6.    Sameena Daughter of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About 60
     Years.
7.    Noorjaha Daughter of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About 58
     Years.
8.   Fatima Daughter of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About 48
     Years.
9.    Rajiya Daughter of Late Mohommed Jamal, Age About 47
     Years.
10. Rabia Wife Of Late Mohammed Sabir, Age About 57 Years.
11. Salma Daughter of Late Mohammad Sabir, Age About 52
     Years
12. Naseem Bano Daughter of Late Mohammad Sabir, Age About
     45 Years.
13. Mohommad Hussain Son of Late Mohammad Sabir, Age
     About 42 Years.
14. Rihana Daughter of Late Mohammad Sabir, Age About 39
     Years.
15. Arif Son of Late Mohammad Sabir, Age About 35 Years.
16. Smt. Hanifa Wife of Iqbal, Age About 68 Years,
     All Residents Of Chhipo Ki Dhaal, Pali.
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                    Versus


1.       Rajasthan State Industrial and Investment Corporation
         Ltd., Through Its Chairman and Managing Director, Udyog
         Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.


                     (Downloaded on 05/05/2025 at 09:31:35 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:20074]                     (2 of 9)                     [CW-16185/2024]


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


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, Adv.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 08/04/2025

Judgment Pronounced on : 02/05/2025

1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the

resolution/minutes of meeting dated 29.08.2024 and the

communication dated 03.09.2024, whereunder the request of

the petitioners for allotment of industrial plot in the newly

established industrial area at Punayata, Distt. Pali was rejected.

2) The case of the petitioners is that their father, Chhipa

Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim, had established a textile unit in the name

and style of M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim on Plot No. A/67,

Sumerpur Road, Pali. This textile unit had been continued to run

until it was closed as per directions of the Division Bench of this

Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 759/2002 (Mahaveer

Nagar Vikas Samiti, Pali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided

on 09.03.2004. In that judgment, the Court directed RIICO to

[2025:RJ-JD:20074] (3 of 8) [CW-16185/2024]

establish a new industrial area at a suitable location, exclusively

for textile processing units, away from residential areas.

Additionally, industries located within residential areas were

ordered to be shifted to the newly established industrial area. In

pursuance of such directions, the first respondent established a

new industrial area in Punayata, Distt. Pali. The RIICO conducted

surveys of existing units by first and second surveys. The District

Industries Center also conducted a third survey. The petitioners'

name was found in the third survey report at serial No. 16.

3) The petitioners initially submitted an application for the

allotment of an industrial plot in the newly established industrial

area on the ground that the petitioners' unit, which was

operating in the residential area at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpura,

had been closed and such a unit should be shifted to the newly

established industrial area upon the allotment of an industrial

plot. The said application was rejected through a communication

dated 22.12.2009, on the grounds that the third survey report

was not issued on the directions of the proper authorities but it

was prepared by the District Industries Center, Pali. The rejection

order was challenged before this Court by various individuals,

including the petitioners, whose applications were rejected only

on the ground that the third survey report cannot be basis for

grant of industrial plot in the newly established industrial area.

Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed, and a direction was

issued to RIICO to consider the fresh applications to be filed by

the petitioners therein, on the basis of third survey report.

 [2025:RJ-JD:20074]                   (4 of 8)                         [CW-16185/2024]



4)       The petitioners submitted a fresh application dated

06.06.2024, along with the required documents, claiming the

allotment of an industrial plot. Along with the said application,

the petitioners had submitted the electricity bills and the notices

issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 13.05.2004 and

27.09.2004, under which a direction was given to the petitioners'

unit to close down and comply with the directions issued by the

Division Bench of this Court.

5) The Allotment Committee, by its resolution dated

29.08.2024 and through communication dated 03.09.2024,

rejected the petitioners' application on two grounds. The first

ground was that the name of the applicant did not match the

name reflected in the third survey report, and the second ground

was that the communications produced by the petitioners, which

were claimed to have been issued by the Pollution Control Board,

appeared to be of a suspicious nature. On these two grounds,

the request for the allotment of the industrial plot was rejected.

Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners.

6) The case of the respondents is that the petitioners' name,

as reflected in various applications and other communications,

do not match with the name of the industrial unit identified in

the third survey report. The petitioners are not clear regarding

the name of the unit, as they have been mentioning it either as

'Gafoor Ibrahim' or 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim.' Furthermore, in the

civil suit, the name of the plaintiff was mentioned as 'Chhipa

[2025:RJ-JD:20074] (5 of 8) [CW-16185/2024]

Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim, represented by proprietor Jamaluddin S/o

Ibrahim.' According to the respondents, the petitioner is

uncertain whether M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim is a

proprietary concern or a firm. This was appropriately considered

by the Allotment Committee, which rightly concluded that the

names reflected in the application and other communications did

not match with the name of the unit as reflected in the survey

report. This finding does not suffer from any illegality or

arbitrariness that would warrant interference by this Court.

7) The case of the respondents is that the alleged notices

issued by the Pollution Control Board, upon verification, were

found to have a single dispatch number. Since multiple notices

were issued under a single dispatch number, it appears that

these notices were managed and thus, they are suspicious

documents. As such, they could not be foundation to claim the

allotment. This was also rightly considered by the Allotment

Committee while rejecting the application. Therefore,

interference by this Court is unwarranted.

8) I have heard the arguments of both the counsels and

carefully perused the material available on record.

9) The facts disclosed are that in the initial application filed

by the petitioners, the name of the applicant is given as 'Gafoor

Ji Ibrahim Ji.' The electricity bills produced by the petitioner

reflect the name of the consumer as 'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.' The

cause title of the previous writ petition shows the name of the

[2025:RJ-JD:20074] (6 of 9) [CW-16185/2024]

petitioner as 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim.' The fresh application

dated 06.06.2024 contains the name of the petitioner as 'Cheepa

Gafoor Ibrahim.' However, the third Survey List at serial No. 16

shows the name of the industrial unit as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor

Ibrahim.' In the previous round of rejection, the rejection was

not based on the fact that the names 'Gafoor Ji Ibrahim Ji,'

'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,' or 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim' were not the

names of the textile unit, which was found in the third survey

report as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.' It appears that the

partners/proprietors of M/s Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim are

family members of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim, i.e., they are

the sons and daughter-in-law of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.

No doubt, while giving the nomenclature in the first application,

as well as the second application and the previous writ petition,

different descriptions have been used, either omitting 'Chhipa' or

'Abdul.' However, it is not the finding of the Allotment Committee

that the applicants, who made an application seeking the

allotment of the industrial plot, are strangers to M/s Chhipa

Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. The pleadings and material on record

clearly establish that the applicants are the sons and daughters-

in-law of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim who was running the

textile unit at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpur, Pali. While referring to

the nomenclature of the applicants, the authority should have

considered the educational background of the applicants. All the

applicants appear to be illiterate, as evidenced by the application

submitted by them, on which only their thumb impressions were

[2025:RJ-JD:20074] (7 of 9) [CW-16185/2024]

made. These applicants are none other than the sons of Chhipa

Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. A mere omission of 'Chhipa' or/and 'Abdul'

while giving the name of the applicant should not be taken to

mean that they are strangers and unconnected with M/s Chhipa

Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.

10) It appears that the petitioners also produced electricity

bills in which the name of the consumer was given as 'Abdul

Gafoor Ibrahim' and in these bills, 'Chhipa' is omitted. However,

the certificate issued by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam shows that the

consumer's name, as reflected in the application for obtaining

the connection, was clearly mentioned as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor

Ibrahim'. The certificate issued by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam

seems to have not been placed before the authorities, and the

order also does not reflect consideration of such a certificate

except the anomalies found in various cause titles of the

application, suit, and writ petition and such anomalies were

influential factors in holding that the names of the applicants did

not match the name of the applicants as reflected in the third

survey list.

11) There is no mention in the rejection order as to whether

other documents proving title, such as the allotment letter,

patta, or jamabandi (land records), were considered, particularly

if the industry is located on agricultural land. In case, the unit is

not running on patta or allotment letter, or any khatedari land, a

tenant is also entitled to an allotment, provided proof of the

existence of a rent agreement and an affidavit from the

[2025:RJ-JD:20074] (8 of 9) [CW-16185/2024]

landowner stating that they will not claim any allotment based

on the existence of the unit on their land. It is not clear from the

writ petition whether such a document was submitted to the

Allotment Authority or not. In light of the additional material

produced before this Court, particularly the letter issued by the

Vidyut Vitaran Nigam, wherein the consumer's name is clearly

mentioned as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,' which is

clarificatory in nature to the electricity bills that were part of the

application for allotment of land submitted by the petitioners,

wherein the name of the consumer is mentioned as 'Abdul

Gafoor Ibrahim,' omitting the name/caste 'Chhipa.

12) In the said background of the facts, this Court is inclined

to set aside the impugned order of rejection and remand the

matter back to the respondents-authority to consider afresh the

application of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plot by

re-appreciating the anomalies found in the name of the

applicants. The petitioners are directed to produce any other

additional material before the Allotment Authority in proof of

existence of unit as required in the advertisement inviting

applications for allotment of industrial plot i.e. title proof,

electricity bill. If it is run on tenanted land, rent agreement and

affidavit of landlord shall be produced. If the Allotting Authorities

are satisfied that Chhipa Abdul Gafoor was running the unit as

on the date of the direction to close the units as ordered by the

Division Bench of this Court, the request of the petitioners for

allotment shall be considered.

                                    [2025:RJ-JD:20074]                   (9 of 9)                    [CW-16185/2024]



                                   13)        With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed

of. The said exercise shall be done within 3 months from the

date of filing additional documents by the petitioners. The

petitioners are given liberty to submit additional material before

the Allotting Authority within a period of 15 days from the date

of receipt of this order.

14) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J NK/-