- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Both these writ petitions are decided by this common order in view of the same plea taken by both the petitioners in these writ petitions. The facts of SBCWP No.4075/2010 will be sufficient guidance for other cases for deciding the legal issue.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 19.3.2010 by which the revision petition was allowed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Sri Ganganagar and the allotment of the shops made in favour of the petitioner and other persons was set aside.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the allotment order was appealable and in exceptional circumstances, it could have been challenged by way of revision. It is submitted that in the case of Chiranji Lal vs. Addl. Collector III, Jaipur & Ors., 2002 4 RajLW 2284, such order passed in revision has been set aside by this Court. It is also submitted that the procedure was not followed by learned Additional Collector before passing the order and he did not examine the record and passed the order mechanically.;