The court established that an allotment process initiated without the required sanction of the State Government is a legal nullity and that failure to disclose material facts to the court can be an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner for assailing the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Single Bench whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to decide the matter pertaining to allotment of godown was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti “A” Category, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mandi Samiti’) issued an advertisement dated 13.01.2006 for allotment of a godown having capacity of 1000 metric ton on in- situ basis (in the original position). In the advertisement dated 13.01.2006, it was further stated that allotment of godown shall be made as per the rates fixed in accordance with the Allotment Policy, 2005 for allotment of godowns, decided by the Government of Rajasthan. The appellant-writ petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement submitted an application dated 14.01.2006 seeking allotment of godown and deposited security amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with the respondents. Since, the husband of the appellant-writ petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk with the Mandi Samiti, the Secretary, Mandi Samiti vide letter dated 20.03.2006 sought guidelines from Director, Agricultural Marketing as to whether allotment in favour of the appellant could be made. The Additional Director, Agricultural Marketing vide communication dated 13.06.2006 sought explanation from Secretary, Mandi as to with whose permission, advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued for allotment of godown and security amount accepted thereto, particularly when the reserve rates for the same had not been finalised after coming into force of Allotment Policy, 2005. The Secretary, Mandi Samiti thereupon vide letter dated 04.10.2006 clarified that permission for allotment of godown on in situ basis had been granted by the Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, vide letter dated 26.08.2006. Further inter alia, it was stated that security amount for the godown was fixed by the Mandi Samiti on its own, as per the provisions of General Finance and Account Rules and the reserve price for allotment was to be finalised after receiving guidelines from the Directorate, Agricultural Marketing. It is evident from the record that allotment proceedings pursuant to advertisement dated 13.01.2006 could not be completed and therefore, Mandi Samiti through registered post dated 28.07.2008 returned a cheque dated 28.07.2008, bearing No. 821252 of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant-writ petitioner, deposited against security amount by her. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, no such cheque was received by her and since she was interested in completion of the godown allotment process, a legal notice dated 08.07.2008 was served upon Mandi Samiti requesting them to expedite the process of allotment. However, the efforts made by the appellant to accelerate the allotment process were in vain. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in completing the godown allotment process initiated through advertisement dated 13.01.2006, appellant-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before learned Single Bench with the following prayers:

“1. Writ petition may kindly be allowed and proper order/writ/direction/mandamus may kindly be issued.

2. Respondent may kindly be directed to decide the matter for the allotment of the Godown.

3. During the pendency of this petition respondents may kindly be directed to not allot the Godown to other person.”

3. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 24.02.2022 dismissed the writ petition holding that in the policy decision, the respondents cannot be bound down to complete the allotment process of godown unless the same suffers from arbitrariness or discrimination. It was observed that the allotment process had not culminated into finality even after a lapse of 10 years and thus no case for interference was made out. The appellant-writ petitioner has laid a challenge t