MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) These appeals are directed against two separate judgments dated 18.08.2015 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by appellants have been dismissed. Since both the appeals involve similar facts, they are being decided together but for the purpose of disposal, we take facts of Appeal No. 843/2015 as the basis.
(2.) Appellants, in writ petitions, prayed for issue of mandamus directing respondents to allot them Plot No. F-84, 85, 86 and 87, Industrial Area, Bapi, Dausa, on the same terms and conditions applicable at the relevant time or to allot any other plot in lieu of the said plots in the same scheme. An alternative prayer was made that respondents be directed to allot area of 10000 square meters in any other nearby industrial zone on the same terms and conditions on which the allotment proposed to be made in favour of petitioners (appellants herein). Further prayer was made that order passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, dated 10.02.2015 in the Appeal No. 2210/2010 to the extent of its pronouncement on merits, even though matter was adjudged by it as non-consumer matter, be quashed and set aside and consequentially, the order of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jaipur, dated 21.10.2010 in Complaint No. 769/2007, may also be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Facts of the case are that appellants applied for allotment of admeasuring 10,000 square meters at Industrial Area Bapi, Dausa, and for that purpose submitted an application to the respondents - Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the RIICO') on 19.03.2005 along-with Demand Draft of Rs. 2,34,000/-. The application was registered for consideration as per procedure of allotment and given priority No. 38. The respondents then, vide communication dated 23.08.2005, required the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as additional development fee at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square meter for supply of water to the area to be allotted. The appellant failed to deposit the said amount. Subsequently, appellants, vide letter dated 31.08.2005, conveyed to respondent RIICO that if and when the water supply was started, the said amount would be deposited within thirty days and in case the water supply was to start late, the amount will be deposited along-with remaining 75% of the development fee. The appellant deposited the water development charges on 02.12.2005 and obtained receipt of deposit of Rs. 87,500/-, which was 25% of the development charges.;