Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Since all these writ petitions involve similar question therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common Judgment . However, the writ petitions are dealt with category wise. Category-A S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6432/2004 Deepak Kumar Dinesh Kumar vs. Stated S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6443/2004 M/s. Ghiya Jute Industries vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230/2005 Akta Bardana Bhandar vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6760/2005 Murari Lal Agarwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6768/2004 Mahendra Kumar Agarwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7001/2004 Roop Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7240/2004 M/s. Bansimal Dayal Das vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 737/2005 Avinash Kumar Agarwal vs. State 1-A. In these aforesaid eight writ petitioners all the petitioners are mainly dealing with the business of Non Notified goods. 2. The petitioners are mainly doing business of cattle feed, sale and purchase of agriculture produce. The main contentions of the petitioners are that they purchase agriculture produce and thereafter they manufacture cattle feed and same is being sold by them. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they are doing business of sale of cattle feed which is non notified agriculture produce and according to the respondents they are not found eligible quo with the persons who are doing business of notified agriculture produce as per the rules of Rajasthan Agriculture Market Produce Act, 1961. 4. Having considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioners it is not disputed that they are doing their business in the Mandi Samiti but not dealing with the notified agriculture produce. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be put at par with the persons who are doing business of notified agriculture produce. But, on this count alone, their applications cannot be rejected merely because they are doing cattle feed business. 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of with the direction ignoring the fact that even the aforesaid writ petitioners are not doing business of notified agriculture produce but they are using agriculture produce for cattle feed. But, on this count alone, their applications cannot be rejected merely because they are doing cattle feed business. 5. Accordingly, the aforesaid writ petitions are disposed of with the direction ignoring the fact that even the aforesaid writ petitioners are not doing business of notified agriculture produce but they are using agriculture produce for cattle feed. Atta Maida and Suji etc., some are dealing with bardana and admittedly they are doing their business in the Chandpole Mandi and, therefore, they are eligible to apply for the shops but priority is to be given to the persons who are mainly dealing with notified agriculture produce and after allotment of the shops to the persons falling in this category, the petitioners be also considered for left over shops in the newly set up Mandi. Category -B S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7057/2004 Madhu Sudan Maroo vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6204/2004 Harshit Edible Oil vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6456/2004 Ashok Kumar Jain vs. State 6. The petitioners were earlier granted licences but they are not renewed and at present none of the petitioners are possessing valid licence to carry out business of agriculture produce, therefore, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti rejected their application as they are not having licence and as such are not entitled for allotment of shops. .7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties it is not disputed that initially the licence was granted under the Rules of 1963 but the licence was canceled and in all the cases either the liecnes are canceled or not renewed. .8. Section 16 of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 reads as under:- Appeals.- (1) any person aggrieved by an order- .(a) of market committee refusing to grant or renew a licence, or canceling or suspending a licence, may appeal to the Director; .(b) of the Chairman of Secretary suspending a licence, may appeal to the Director; .(c) of the Director cancelling or suspending a licence may appeal to the Government. .(2) All appeals shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to the person aggrieved by such order. .(3) The Government or the Director, as the case may be, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, stay the operations of the order appealed against pending the final decision. .(2) All appeals shall be filed within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to the person aggrieved by such order. .(3) The Government or the Director, as the case may be, may for reasons to be recorded in writing, stay the operations of the order appealed against pending the final decision. .(4) The Government or the Director shall decide the appeal after giving the authority against whose order the appeal has been filed, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the appeal should not be accepted. 9. In view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Act if the person aggrieved by any order cancelling or refusing for renewal of licence, the petitioner can file appeal against such order. Until and unless the petitioners validly possess the licence their applications cannot be considered for the purpose of allotment of shops. In such circumstances, the aforesaid petitioners are not eligible for allotment of shops. However, they are at liberty to invoke the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid observation all these three petitions fail and hereby dismissed. Category -C (Out of Mandi Yard) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7274/2004 Hazari Lal Gupta vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 649/2005 Dinesh Ghiya vs.State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 650/2005 Chander Kanta vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 901/2005 Somani Sales vs. State S.B. Civil writ Petition No. 5553/2004 Atal Jain vs. State S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6911/2004 Sirsiwala Trading Company vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 10. The petitioners contention is that they are not being considered as they are running their business outside Chandpole Mandi Yard. The submission on behalf of the respondents that they are displacing the traders from the Chandpole Mandi Yard and are being given shops at newly set up Mandi yard at Kukar Kheda, therefore, priority is given to the traders who are doing their business in the Chandpole Mandi yard. 11. The submission on behalf of the respondents that they are displacing the traders from the Chandpole Mandi Yard and are being given shops at newly set up Mandi yard at Kukar Kheda, therefore, priority is given to the traders who are doing their business in the Chandpole Mandi yard. 11. Having considered the rival submissions it is not disputed that the petitioners are doing their business outside the Chandpole Mandi Yard and I am fully agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents that priority is to be given to the businessmen/traders who are doing the business in Chandpole Mandi Yard as they are supposed to be rehabilitated in priority basis and application of the petitioners can only be considered in case any shop is left over. .12. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that after allotting shops to the traders businessmen of the Chandople Mandi Yard in case shops remain unfilled these petitioners may also be considered for allotment of the shops. .S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 556/2004 in .S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6714/2004 Pawan Kumar vs. State. 13. The application stands allowed. The order dated 29.09.2004 is recalled and the writ petition stands disposed of in terms as indicated in the Judgment rendered in the SBCWP No. 7274/2004 Category-D S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 160/2005 Anaz Mandi Chandpole Veopar Mandal & Ors. vs. State. 14. Veopar Mandal had filed this writ petition seeking writ order or direction directing the respondents to quash and set aside the allotment list dated 212.2004 and the petitioner association be declared eligible for allotment of shop at Kukar Kheda Mandi Yard and in this writ petition the association also challenged the policy drawn by the respondents for allotment of the shops in the Mandi Samiti. 15. 15. The respondents have framed a policy which is reproduced as under:- okf "kd vkSlr VuZ vksoj ,oe okf "kZd eaMh k qYd ds vkadMs er rhu o"kksZ ds vkadMksa ds vk/kkj ij sA rhu o"kZ ls vf /kd ds vkadMs ugha fd;s tk; xasfudkys tk; xssA ;fn fdlh O;kikjh@Þdß oxZ nyky ds ikl xr o"kZ ls gh vuqKki= gS rks ml fLFkfr esa 2 o"kZ ds vkadMs ysdj gh okf "kZd vkSlr ds vkadMs fudkys tk; xssA ;fn fdlh O;kikjh@Þdß oxZ nyky ds ikl ,d o"kZ ls gh vuqKki= gS rks ml fLFkfr esa ,d o"kZ ds vkadMs ysdj gh okf "kZd vkSlr ds vkadMs fudkys tk; xsAsVuZ vksoj ds vkadMs dsoy vf /klqfpr -f"k ftUlksa ds gh gksxsaA mnkgj.k ds rkSj ij ;fn vkaoVu o"kZ a fd;k tk jgk gS rks bl fLFkfr es1988&89 esa xr o"kZ ds VuZ vksoj ds vkadMks dks vk/kkj ekudj vad iznku fd; s tkus gS] fo"k;% vkaoVu izfdz;k ds fy; s tkjh fnkk funsZkksa esa lakks/ku gsrq% e.Mh lfefr;ka fufeZr nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa dks vkaoVu ds fy;s ftu vuqKki=/kkfj;ka dks xr rhu lkyksa esa VuZ vksoj@e.Mh kqYd gksus ij _.kkRed vad fn;s tkrs gS mUgs vkaoVu ds fy;s ik= ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg;As 16. Upon perusal of the policy prepared by the respondents for allotment of the shop and in view of the settled proposition of law and the consistent view taken by the Honble the Supreme Court and this High Court, the Court normally should not interfere with the policy decision taken by the Stat until and unless the policy is arbitrary in nature. Upon consideration of the policy and upon hearing the rival submissions of the respective parties I find no illegality in the policy and the policy prepared by the respondents does not require any interference by this Court. 17. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Category E S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4837/2003 Sodala Anaj Vyapar Samiti & Ors. vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6210/2004 Manoj Kumar Bansal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3764/2004 Shri and Shiv Traders vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5595/2003 in Satish Kumar Khandelwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4351/2004 Satya Narayan Gupta vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4951/2004 Shri Goverdhan Lal Ashish Kumar vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3764/2004 Shri and Shiv Traders vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5595/2003 in Satish Kumar Khandelwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4351/2004 Satya Narayan Gupta vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4951/2004 Shri Goverdhan Lal Ashish Kumar vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6080/2004 Ram Kishore Khandelwal vs. State & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5054/2004 Shri Sanwarmal Agarwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 5462/2004 Sri Ram Agarwal vs. State & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6006/2004 Sita Ram Rajendra Prasad vs. State & Ors. 18. As it is not disputed that all the aforementioned petitioners are doing their business in the Mandi sub Yard created by the respondents like Sodala, Lal Kothi and Suraj Pole. They have also applied for shops in the newly set up Mandi yard at Kukar Kheda and it is also not disputed that the area where the Sub yard are situated are very congested and the case of the petitioners also stands at similar footing as that the traders of Chand pole Mandi Yard. .19. In view of this fact I deem it proper to dispose of these writ petitions with the direction that after giving allotment to the businessmen/traders of Chandpole Mandi Yard the petitioners be given priority for allotment and after considering the case of the applicants of the sub yard of outside sodala, Surajpole and Lalkothi second priority is to be given to the persons who are doing business with the non notified agriculture produce in Chandpole Mandi and priority is to be given to the persons who are doing their business outside Mandi Yard. .S.B. Miscellaneous Application No. 19/2005 in .S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7309/2004 Shyam Sunder Garg vs. State. 20. The application stand allowed. The order dated 210.2004 is recalled and the writ petition stands disposed of in terms as indicated in the Judgment rendered in the SBCWP No. 6210/2004