- (1.) THE learned counsels for the parties agree that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vijaychand Pradeepkumar V/s State of Rajasthan and anr. - SBCWP No.4666/2011 decided on 8.2.2013. The operative portion of the said order reads as under : "12. As far as the consideration of the respective applications of the petitioners for the second phase of allotment of 27 shops in pursuance of notification (Annex.7) dtd.11.4.2011 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitions are premature. Admittedly, the allotment of second phase of allotment of 27 shops undertaken in pursuance of Annex.7 dtd.11.4.2007 has not yet been completed by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. They are bound to undertake that decision making process as per existing policy of 2005 as amended by notification dtd.14.10.2010 and as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that they are is bound to consier the applications for these 27 shops/plots in accordance with existing law. This Court is of the opinion that no mandamus or directions is required to be given to the respondents to comply and abide by the existing policy guidelines of 2005 as amended in 2010 at the time of consideration of the respective applications of the present petitioners and others who may not have even filed the writ petitions before this Court, but whose applications are pending before the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga. 13. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that they will have the preference over other applicants because of their existing business and despite their partners being existing partners in other firms also does not have any merit since criteria of such classification has already been upheld by this Court as indicated above. The fresh applications for second phase of allotment of 27 shops are also bound to be considered only as per the existing Policy guidelines for which no premature intervention can be made by this Court in the present set of writ petitions. It is only after such allotments are made taking a considered decision by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and if the petitioners are aggrieved with the same on justifiable reasons that a cause of action can be said to have arisen to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court or avail other appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law. It would be premature to consider the claim of the petitioners in absence of those who are applicants, but are not before this court at this stage. There is no justification to prejudge the decision making process of the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for allotment of the said 27 shops yet to be made by them. Therefore, only after such allotment is made and that the petitioners may make out a ground for assailing those decisions of 27 shops that they may be permitted to avail appropriate legal remedy. 14. The judgments cited at Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of M/s Labha Ram and sons V/s State of Punjab and ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 2086 wherein it was observed that in para 16 and 17 of the judgment by the Apex court that in the matter of allotment of plots/shops in new market yard, the existing traders should be given preference. The preference to the erstwhile dealers may not be by providing free allotment of building or plots or allotment at a rate which is below the reserved price. The Government may fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, but such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. 15. The said judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, since no such case is made out in the present set of facts where the application of the petitioner has been rejected on valid grounds in the first phase of allotment of shops, whereas fresh applications for second phase of allotments are yet to be decided and as far as rate of allotment of plot in question are concerned, the same has already been delineated in the notifications published as quoted above on DLC rates or at 1 1/2 times of DLC Rate in case of new applicants as the case may be, but that is not the question requiring consideration at the present stage. 16. The other judgments cited at the bar in the case of AIR 2010 (SC) 6885 ­ Gainda Ram V/s M.C.D. And ors. is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said case, while dealing with the case of street hawkers in light of Article 19(1)(g) and 19 (6) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the schemes framed by the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council for such street hawkers do not have statutory force and law regulating street hawking is necessary and therefore, the Court framed a particular scheme for hawkers to continue with regulated Scheme till the appropriate law is enacted. On the basis of this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the present petitioners deserves to be given preference as they have right to carry on the business in the new Mandi area since the earlier area has been denotified. The cited judgment with great respects is of little avail to the petitioners in the present case. The street hawkers for whom Scheme was framed by the Apex Court have hardly any parity with the business traders whose business is regulated under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act and Allotment Policy of 2005 as quoted above. Therefore, this judgment is of no avail to the petitioner. 17. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs"
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , the present writ petition is also dismissed in same terms. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;