Judgment Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-The petitioner-herein, who is a wholesale trader of fruits and vegetables conducing his business in Jaipur, has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Jaipur dated 20.03.1990 as contained in Annexure-20 by which the applicants plea that he was entitled for allotment of a shop of a bigger area although was upheld, it could be noticed that on account of certain development (which had been initiated by the affected parties to whom allotments were denied and interim orders were passed), the respondents could not allot the shops to the applicants including the petitioner although they were entitled for such allotment. As a consequence of the same, the petitioner also was denied the shop of a bigger area as already stated. The Director, Agriculture Marketing Board in the impugned order was pleased to observe that the applicant, who is the petitioner herein, had a turn-over of Rs. 10 lacs which was the condition for such allotment, and yet he was denied a bigger shop to which he was entitled. The Director further observed that “Looking to the circumstances of the whole case it is suggested that whenever these shops are complete and ready for allotment, the applicants case may be considered as per rules for allotment of one big shop on the condition that he vacates shop No. 11 A and hands over its possession to Mandi Samiti”, meaning thereby that the smaller shop which had been allotted to the applicant-petitioner who raised a grievance that he was entitled to be allotted a bigger shop in view of his turn-over, was granted relief to the extent that he may be allotted a big shop in lieu of the shop which is in his occupation at the moment, and the shop in future be allotted which should be of a bigger area. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Joshi has stated that although it may be correct that at present, shop of a bigger area might not be available in the existing Mandi Samiti, the respondents are constructing the shops at some other place in new Mandi at Muhana in Jaipur District which although is involved in litigation, the construction might ultimately take final shape. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. A.K. Sharma also admitted the position and stated that the Director, Agriculture Marketing Board has himself taken note of this fact and garneted this relief to the applicant-petitioner against which no appeal has been preferred by the respondents. 4. It is therefore, considered just and appropriate to reiterate and confirm the observation of the Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, who taking into account the request of the applicant-petitioner has been reasonable to accept and order that a bigger shop in lieu of the small shop bearing No. 1A which is in his occupation at the moment be allotted to him in the new Mandi which is under construction. 5. This writ petition is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents that as and when a bigger shop is constructed in the new Mandi at Muhana in Jaipur District and the petitioner agrees to take the bigger shop in the new Mandi Samiti in lieu of the small shop No. 11A, the same shall be handed over to him at the old rate to which he was entitled in the old Mandi. The reason for this concession is on account of the fact that the petitioner had been illegally denied the bigger shop in the old Mandi and although he had succeeded for that allotment as per the criteria, he could not be allotted a bigger shop on account of the fact that all shops had already been allotted to others by virtue of the orders of different Courts and therefore, as and when the petitioner is allotted a shop of bigger area, he is entitled to get the bigger shop at the old rate since his case had to be treated on par with the applicants who have already been allotted the shop earlier in the Mandi. 6. The writ petition, in view of the aforesaid direction, stands allowed and disposed. of .