Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order dated 10.9.1998 (Annex.8) passed in favour of in all 33 persons by Addl. Commissioner (Food) allotting Diesel Barrel Point. However, only present respondent no.3 is joined as private respondent out of those 33 persons. Serious allegations have been made against the member of the selection committee, who were M.L. As of the State at that time, without making them as a party respondents. When this petition first came up before my learned brother Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 22.10.1998, the following order was passed :- ``22.10.98 Honble Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Mr. R.K. Soni, for the petitioner. Serious allegations have been made against the members of the selection committee though, none of them have been made party. Allegations of malafide cannot be entertained in such a way. Mr. Soni prays for time to implead them as party respondent. ``Put up after three weeks. (2). Instead of joining them as party respondents the petitioner has filed affidavit dated 15.11.1998 in which he has named three M.L.As from Merta, Jodhpur and Dausa and gave the reason for no impleading them as party respondent by saying that ``However, I do not know the proper address of them and therefore, it is not possible to implead them as party respondents in this case. It is further stated in the affidavit that. Hence, their correct address deserve to be summoned/discovered from the respondents so as that above members of selection committee can be impleaded as party respondents in this case. (3). From the above, it clearly appears that the petitioner is not at all serious in joining the members of the selection committee as party respondents in this writ petition by giving false excuses. (4). Today, learned counsel Shri Soni straight away started arguing the matter challenging the order at Annex. 8 by which the allotment was made in favour of the respondent no.3 also on the ground of malafide by submitting that the committee was comprising of the then three M.L.As of ruling party at that time and they have preferred to join the respondent no.3 to the writ petition only because respondent no.3 is a son of Pradhan belonging to the same party. (5). (5). When serious allegations are made in the petition against the Honble members of the committee then they should be as a party on the record of the case. No order can be passed in a case where the members are not no record against whom serious allegations have been made. Sufficient opportunity was given by Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. on 22.10.98 to the petitioner to implead the Honble Members of the selection committee as party respondent to this case, but by giving false excuses no attempt was made to bring them on record of this case as party respondents. (6). Under the circumstances, this writ petition is required to be rejected and it is rejected.