LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri B. D. Purohit for petitioner and Shri Dinesh Maheshwari, for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner, Dr. Mahendra Bhansali is the President of Marudhara Patrakar Sansthan at Jodhpur. THE aim and object of the Society as stated in the writ petition is to safeguard the interest of journalists and ensure allotment of plots and houses to them as per provisions of the relevant Rules. A photo copy of registration certificate and registered identity card issued by the State have been filed as Annex. 1 and Annex. 2. According to them, they are entitled for allotment of plots and houses as per provisions of the Urban Improvement Trust Act, 1959 which came into existence on 24. 07. 1995. THE State Government has also framed Statutory Rules vide notification issued on 7. 3. 1975. THEse Rules are known as the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Sec. 17 of the Rules deals with allotment of residential plots at concessional rates, procedure, categories, priority, plot size, price and recovery etc. Sub-Sec. 2 (f) provides that accredited journalists whose income does not exceed Rs. 7500/- per month at the time of allotment and are bonafide resident of Rajasthan shall be entitled for allotment of residential plots. Sub-Sec. 17 (2) (e) states that 2 per cent of the plots shall be reserved for allotment by draw of lots, shall be allotted to accredited journalists on the basis of procedure as specified in the Rules. It is stated by the petitioner that they submitted their application on prescribed proforma for allotment of plots. Vide letter dt. 3. 10. 1994 the respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit in support of the contention that he does not possess any plot in Rajasthan. THE required information was to be supplied on 8. 11. 1994. THE petitioner complied with the requirement of the said letter and submitted two affidavits duly attested by Notary, Jodhpur. Copies of affidavits submitted by the parties have also been filed as Annex. 4, 5 and 6 respectively. It is stated that similarly, most of the members of the Society also submitted the required information to the respondent No. 3. Since, no action has been taken, the petitioner sent a notice on 3. 7. 1996 and also submitted an application to the Collector, Jodhpur on 25. 9. 1996. Since, there was no response, the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to finalise the pending application of the petitioner and members of the society for allotment of residential plots as per Rules 17 (2) (f) and 17 (3) of the Rules. THEre are other consequential prayers as well. Though this writ petition was filed as public interest litigation by the petitioner, the same in our opinion cannot be treated as a public interest litigation. The petitioner Dr. Mahendra Bhansali has filed the writ petition praying for disposal of his pending application with respondents No. 2 and 3. A further prayer to the same effect for members of the society for allotment of residential plots was also asked for. The relief asked for in our opinion is for individual rights and therefore, the writ petition cannot be treated as public interest litigation. We therefore dispose of the same by directing the petitioner Dr. Mahendra Bhansali and members of the society to individually apply for allotment of residential plots as per rules alongwith supporting documents and affidavits etc. etc. as required under the rules afresh. If such an application is made within one month from today, the respondents no. 2 and 3 will consider the individual application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The applications have to be disposed of after affording opportunity to the individual concerned. In the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that certain plots have been allotted to Shri Anil Sharma, Dr. Mahendra Patwa, Shri Prashant Kothari and Shri Ramesh Pareek by the respondents and while allotting plots to these persons, the respondents have not followed rules and procedure and committed serious illegality. a prayer has also been made in the prayer column of the writ petition to the said effect. We are unable to countenance the said prayer, since persons to whom allotments have been made, have not been made as parties. The allegations have been made only against respondents No. 2 and 3. Under these circumstances, the prayer no. 3 cannot at all be decided in the absence of proper and necessary parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer no. 3 is not countenanced. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner and members of the society to apply for allotment of plots only, as indicated above. .;