Bhagwati Prasad, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following prayers: (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, the non-petitioners may be directed to allot the shop No. F-II-15 to the petitioner; Petitioner (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the allotment made by the non-petitioners being arbitrary may be quashed and set aside and fresh allotment may be made in accordance with the guideline; (c) pending the petition if any other action is being taken by the non-petitioners and any order is passed prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may be quashed and set aside; (d) any other order which may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed; (e) cost of the on petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) In none of the prayers there is a prayer challenging the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The petitioner at the time of arguments was requested to read that part of the petition where he has delineated to challenge the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The learned counsel candidly expressed that this writ petition pertains to seeking allotment in his favour and this writ petition does not pertain to challenge of allotment of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was precisely for this reason that at the time when the writ petition was framed M/s. Raichand Mohanlal was not impleaded as party-respondent and subsequently only by an application M/s. Raichand Mohanlal has come as party-respondent.;