Minor discrepancies in names should not prevent rightful heirs from being recognized as applicants for industrial plot allotment, and all relevant documents must be considered by the authority.

JUDGMENT :

1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution/minutes of meeting dated 29.08.2024 and the communication dated 03.09.2024, whereunder the request of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plot in the newly established industrial area at Punayata, Distt. Pali was rejected.

2) The case of the petitioners is that their father, Chhipa Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim, had established a textile unit in the name and style of M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim on Plot No. A/67, Sumerpur Road, Pali. This textile unit had been continued to run until it was closed as per directions of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 759/2002 (Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti, Pali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 09.03.2004. In that judgment, the Court directed RIICO to establish a new industrial area at a suitable location, exclusively for textile processing units, away from residential areas. Additionally, industries located within residential areas were ordered to be shifted to the newly established industrial area. In pursuance of such directions, the first respondent established a new industrial area in Punayata, Distt. Pali. The RIICO conducted surveys of existing units by first and second surveys. The District Industries Center also conducted a third survey. The petitioners'name was found in the third survey report at serial No. 16.

3) The petitioners initially submitted an application for the allotment of an industrial plot in the newly established industrial area on the ground that the petitioners’ unit, which was operating in the residential area at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpura, had been closed and such a unit should be shifted to the newly established industrial area upon the allotment of an industrial plot. The said application was rejected through a communication dated 22.12.2009, on the grounds that the third survey report was not issued on the directions of the proper authorities but it was prepared by the District Industries Center, Pali. The rejection order was challenged before this Court by various individuals, including the petitioners, whose applications were rejected only on the ground that the third survey report cannot be basis for grant of industrial plot in the newly established industrial area. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed, and a direction was issued to RIICO to consider the fresh applications to be filed by the petitioners therein, on the basis of third survey report.

4) The petitioners submitted a fresh application dated 06.06.2024, along with the required documents, claiming the allotment of an industrial plot. Along with the said application, the petitioners had submitted the electricity bills and the notices issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 13.05.2004 and 27.09.2004, under which a direction was given to the petitioners’ unit to close down and comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court.

5) The Allotment Committee, by its resolution dated 29.08.2024 and through communication dated 03.09.2024, rejected the petitioners' application on two grounds. The first ground was that the name of the applicant did not match the name reflected in the third survey report, and the second ground was that the communications produced by the petitioners, which were claimed to have been issued by the Pollution Control Board, appeared to be of a suspicious nature. On these two grounds, the request for the allotment of the industrial plot was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.

6) The case of the respondents is that the petitioners' name, as reflected in various applications and other communications, do not match with the name of the industrial unit identified in the third survey report. The petitioners are not clear regarding the name of the unit, as they have been mentioning it either as 'Gafoor Ibrahim' or 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim.' Furthermore, in the civil suit, the name of the pl