ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Grievance put forth by the Petitioner in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an inaction on the part of the functionaries of Respondent regarding allotment of a piece of land for construction of laboratory and office building to facilitate in Petitioner's voyage in the said cause of the consumers at large. 2. As the name goes the Petitioner is a consumer association registered under Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 and as a consumer association in terms of Clause (A) of Section 2 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice Act. 1969. 3. The case of the Petitioner in nutshell is that an application in the year 1999 was tendered by the Petitioner for allotment of 5000 sq. ft. of land in any of the places either at Tulsi Nagar, Shivaji Nagar, Arora Hills or anywhere in New Bhopal for construction of the laboratory and administration block. In response to the Petitioner's application a letter dated 6-2-1999 was issued, whereby, the Petitioner was called upon to make an application in prescribed form, which as per the Petitioner, was complied with. The Petitioner, it is urged, was thereafter not informed about the procedure adhered and the matter was kept pending. 4. It is contended that, during pendency of the Petitioner's application, the Respondent No. 4, an association of Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Officers and Employees, approached the Respondent/State for allotment of a particular piece of land situated at Main Road No. 2, Panchsheel Nagar. It is urged that the State Government ignoring the claim of the Petitioner went on to consider the application filed by Respondent No. 4 and by order dated 11-2-2002, the land sought for was allotted free of premium and on an annual ground rent of Re. 1 It is urged that further efforts were also made for allotment of additional piece of land admeasuring 3056 sq. ft. adjacent to existing land. 5. In the background of these facts the grievance made by the Petitioner in the petition is that he is being discriminated in respect of the allotment of land. 1 It is urged that further efforts were also made for allotment of additional piece of land admeasuring 3056 sq. ft. adjacent to existing land. 5. In the background of these facts the grievance made by the Petitioner in the petition is that he is being discriminated in respect of the allotment of land. It is urged that the order of allotment of land in favour of Respondent No. 4 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as the same is an outcome of the pick and choose policy of the State Government, which otherwise is under an obligation to act in fair and just manner. It is accordingly contended that the allotment order issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 be quashed and be prevented from raising any construction thereon. 6. The Respondent/State while defending its action regarding allotment of land in favour of Respondent No. 4, free of premium and on an annual rent of Re. 1 has to submit that the application by the Petitioner was vague as there was no pinpointing of the piece of land which the Petitioner wanted. It is further contended that the Petitioner was however offered a piece of land being part of Khasra No. 393/5/1 admeasuring 0.35 acre situated at village Bawadiya kala adjacent to National highway. Bhopal-Hoshangabad Road by communication dated 2-5-2002. It is urged that Petitioner did not show any interest in the said land. It is accordingly urged that, the Petitioner thus cannot have any grievance regarding the non-consideration of Petitioner's claim for allotment of land. It is contended that allotment in favour of Respondent No. 4 being after following due procedure no interference is warranted. 7. The Respondent No. 4 on its turn in addition to submission on behalf of the State has to contend that there is no comparison between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4. It is urged that it is not the case of the Petitioner that he had applied for allotment of same piece of land as was allotted to the Respondent No. 4. It is urged that the objections were also invited before alloting the land in question, which was published in Nav Bharat, Bhopal on 13-3-200. It is contended that there were no objection from any corner, nor the Petitioner raise any objection. It is urged that the objections were also invited before alloting the land in question, which was published in Nav Bharat, Bhopal on 13-3-200. It is contended that there were no objection from any corner, nor the Petitioner raise any objection. It is therefore averred that the allotment of land in favour of Respondent No. 4 since was after following due procedure, the same is not liable to be quashed at the instance of the Petitioner. 8. Though claim and counter-claim have been put forth by respective parties and even by the State justifying their action of alloting the piece of land sought for by Respondent No. 4 free of premium and on an annual rent of Re. 1; however, none of parties including the State has brought on record any rules, regulations, as would indicate the entitlement of the bodies like Petitioner and Respondent No. 4, to have piece of land at prime location or even at other places in the urban agglomeration. 9. An order dated 4-11-1988 issued from the department of Environment and Housing has been pressed in service by the State Government to justify their action. The said order, Annexure-R/5, is in the following terms:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 10. The order thus postulates earmarking of areas for Housing Board, Bhopal Development Authority, Municipal corporation and Government and Semi-Government. Departments for residential purpose and for administrative offices. The order however nowhere stipulates allotment of land to any of the institutions, including the bodies as the Petitioner, and the Respondent No. 4 at any other place -earmarked and that to free of premium and at an annual rent of Re. 1. And as observed, none of the parties have brought on record rules, regulation or any other order which would entitle them for allotment of land as a matter of right. Though it is emphatically urged on behalf of the Respondents that the State Government exercises the discretionary power; however, the authority on the basis whereof such discretion is being exercised is not disclosed. 11. In view of above this Court finds that there is no indefeasible right of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 to have a land for its administrative office as a matter of right. Therefore, the relief claimed by the Petitioner for grant of land cannot be accorded. 12. 11. In view of above this Court finds that there is no indefeasible right of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 to have a land for its administrative office as a matter of right. Therefore, the relief claimed by the Petitioner for grant of land cannot be accorded. 12. In respect of Respondent No. 4 since it is held that there is no indefeasible right for allotment of land free of premium and on annual rent of Re. 1, the State Government is directed to re-examine the matter and after informing itself of the provisions of law where under the Respondent No. 4 has been allotted the land at Panchsheel Nagar, shall pass a suitable order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The lease granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 would be subject to the final outcome of the order passed by the State Government. Let the same be done within three months from the date of communication of this order. 13. The petition is disposed of finally in above terms. No costs.