R.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, M/s. Saini Timber Merchant, has filed the contempt petition on the ground that the judgment dated 18.3.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, has not been implemented by the respondents -contemners. The judgment dated 18.3.2011 is as under: - "Learned counsel for the parties submit that matter is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Civil) No. 13 of 1996, M/s. Subhash Chand Suresh Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others, decided on 18.1.2011. The present matter may accordingly be covered by the aforesaid. Joint prayer is allowed. The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to cover the present matter by the judgment referred to above."
(2.) THUS , the said judgment was passed entirely on the basis of the decision pronounced by a learned Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s. Subhash Chand Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In the case of M/s. Subhash Chand Suresh Kumar (supra), the learned Division Bench of this court had passed the following order: - "We would accordingly, direct that the cases of the appellant and similar situated persons, who applied along with the appellant should be considered for allotment in accordance with the Policy of 2005." Therefore, the learned Division Bench merely directed the respondents, in the said case, to consider the case of the appellant alongwith similarly situated persons for allotment of shop in the Agriculture Market Yards under the Policy of 2005. Hence, the said direction would have to be interposed in the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by this court. Hence, the direction of the learned Single Judge, then was to the respondents -contemners "to consider the petitioner's case for allotment of a shop in accordance with the Policy of 2005". The brief facts of the case are that after the passing of the judgment dated 18.3.2011, by notice dated 16.3.2011, the respondents -contemners asked the petitioner to submit an application so that the direction contained in the order dated 18.1.2011/18.3.2011 could be complied with. Consequently, on 21.3.2011, the petitioner filed an application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the said application, he had clearly indicated that he was carrying on a trade in timber.
(3.) IN a meeting held on 31.3.2011, the Agriculture Produce Market Samiti not only considered the petitioner's case, but also considered the cases of other similarly situated persons. According to the minutes of the meeting (Anx.C/5), there were cases of nineteen persons from the list of 1988 which needed to be considered by the Samiti.;