Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—This order will dispose of batch of 13 writ petitions as per the Schedule given. 2. The facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.4666/2011 - M/s. Vijaychand Pradeepkumar vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. 3. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of present writ petitions, inter alia, claiming that they had applied or allotment of shops in the new Mandi Yard, Pilibanga notified by the State Government in the year 2008 as new Mandi Yard for which the allotment of 254 shops was to be made on the basis of 99 years of lease under the notification issued on 12.2.2008 in a newspaper, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.2. the said advertisement reads as under: ^^dk;kZy; —f"k mit eaMh lfefr] v- Js.kh ihyhcaxk ¼guqekux<+½ Øekad 1307 fnukad % 12-2-2008 foKfIr —f"k mit eaMh lfefr] ihyhcaxk ds fuekZ.kk/khu uohu e.Mh izkax.k esa ihyhcaxk {ks= ds eaMh lfefr ds vuqKk i= /kkfj;ksa dks vkoaVu uhfr 2005 ds varxZr izFke pj.k gsrq 99 o"khZ; yht ij 254 fpfàr Hkw[k.Mksa dk vkoaVu fd;k tkuk gSA bu 254 Hkw[kaMksa ij —"kd oxZ ds fy, 10 izfr'kr ,oa blesa ls 30 izfr'kr Hkw[k.M Hkw[kaM vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr ds —"kd oxZ ds fy;s vkjf{kr jgsaxsA ftlds fy;s leLr la;qä oxZ@d-nyky oxZ O;kikjh oxZ ds vuqKki= /kkjh ,oa —"kd oxZ@vuqlwfpr tkfr tutkfr ds —"kd oxZ ls vkosnu i= vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSA fu/kkZfjr vkosnu fnukad 15-02-2008 ls dk;kZy; —f"k mit eaMh lfefr ihyhcaxk ls 100 :i;s ewY; ij izkIr fd;s tk ldrs gSA ftudh iwfrZ dj fnukad 15-03-2008 dks lk;a 5-00 cts rd vko';d :i ls eaMh lfefr ihyhcaxk esa izLrqr fd;s tk ldsaxsA fu/kkZfjr fnukad ds i'pkr~ izkIr vkosnu i=ksa ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tk,xkA v/;{k lfpo —f"k mit eaMh lfefr —f"k mit eaMh lfefr ihyhcaxk ihyhcaxk 4. The petitioner claimed that though it had applied under the said notification its applicationw as rejected and though no separate rejection order was communicated thelist of eligible applicants who were selected to be allotted the said shops, a list of total 202 members was notified in which list, his name was not there and in another list of ineligible candidates notified by the respondent - KUMS, Pilibanga, the name of petitioner figures at serial No.43 and reasons assigned in column 4 of such list is vU; QeZ esa Hkkxhnkj meaning thereby that one of the partners of the applicant firm was partner in other firms which were also carrying on business of the sale of agricultural produce under the licence given to them under Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 in the same market area. After allotment of 227 shops, allotment of remaining 27 shops was undertaken by issuing another notification in the newspaper on 11.4.2011, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.7. The said notification dtd. After allotment of 227 shops, allotment of remaining 27 shops was undertaken by issuing another notification in the newspaper on 11.4.2011, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.7. The said notification dtd. 11.4.2011 is also reproduced below for ready reference : ^^dk;kZy; —f"k mit eaMh lfefr- v- Js.kh ihyhcaxk ¼guqekux<+½ Øekad%@2011@119-128 fnukad % 11-4-2011 uohu eaMh ;kMZ] ihyhcaxk esa fpfàr fjä 27 Hkw[k.Mksa dk vkoaVu vpy lEifÙk vkoaVu uhfr] 2005 esa fufgr izko/kkukUrxZr f}rh; pj.k esa 99 o"khZ; yht i)fr ij ykWVjh }kjk fd;k tkrk gS%& vkoafVr fd;s tkus okys fjä Hkw[k.Mksa dk fooj.k Ø-la- CykWd fjä Hkw[k.M la[;k Hkw-[k.M dk lkbZt dqy fjä Hkw-[k.M ¼ux½ 1 D 51, 53 o 54 25'x100' 3 E 55,56,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,67 o 68 25'x100' 11 2 3 G 87,88,90,92,94,95,96,97,98 o 101 25'x100' 12 4 Q 247-25'x100' 1 dqy ;ksx% 27 mä fjä Hkw-[k.Mksa dk vkoaVu,sls vuqKki=/kkjh dks gh vkoaVu ds le; D.L.C. dh izHkkoh nj ij fd;k tkosxk- ftUgksaus vkoaVu ds o"kZ ls Bhd iowZ ds de ls de ,d foÙkh; o"kZ esa vf/klwfpr —f"k ftUlksa dk O;olk; fd;k gks] ijUrq vkoaVu ds le; D.L.C. dh izHkkoh nj dh Ms<+ xquk jkf'k ij ,sls vkosndksa dks Hkh Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k tk ldsxk- ftUgksaus iwoZ esa vf/klwfpr —f"k ftUlksa dk O;olk; ugha fd;k gksA mä fjä 27 Hkw[k.Mksa esa 20 izfr'kr efgyk —"kd gsrq vFkkZr~ 5 Hkw[k.M vkjf{kr gS] ftlesa ls 30 izfr'kr vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr efgyk —"kd ds fy, vFkkZr~ ,d ,d Hkw[k.M vkjf{kr gSA bPNqd efgyk —"kd vkosnu dj ldrh gSA ,d Hkw[k.M ,l-ch- flfoy fjV ihfV'ku la-7912@2008 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj }kjk fnujkad 13-10-2008 dks fn;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj vkjf{kr jgsxkA vr% bPNqd vkosndksa ls Hkw[k.M vkoaVu gsrq izkFkZuk i= fnukad 10-5-2011 rd dk;kZy; le; esa vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSA vkoaVu laca/kh 'krsZ o vkosnu i= dk;kZy; le; esa 100@& :- vkosnu i= 'kqYd tek djokdj izkIr fd;s tk ldrs gSaA /kjksgj jkf'k 10000@& :- fu/kkZfjr gs] tks tfj;s Mh-Mh- tek djokbZ tkuh vko';d gSA vkoaVu ds leLr vf/kdkj vkoaVu lfefr ds ikl lqjf{kr jgsaxsA lqeu tk[kM+ v'kksd 'kekZ v/;{k lfpo —f"k mit eaMh lfefr —f"k mit eaMh lfefr ^^v** Js.kh ihyhcaxk ^^v** Js.kh ihyhcaxk 5. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner also applied again for allotment of one shop out of said 27 shops, but with the apprehension that this application will be rejected again on the basis of allotment guidelines notified in the year 2005, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.3, since one of the partner fo the applicant firm is also existing partner in other licenced firm and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition. Some of the petitioners in connectd writ petitions were not allotted the shops in earlier allotment of 227 shops in pursuance of earlier notification dtd. 12.2.2008 quoted aove on the ground that their turn-over of the preceding 3 years was not upto cut off level and therefore, as per the criteria laid down in Clause 4 of the Allotment Policy notified in the year 2005 effective from 25.4.2005, they were also rendered ineligible and even though they also applied for reallotment of shops in pursuance of subsequent notification on 11.4.2011 (Annex.7) quoted above, they wouldalso be equality ineligible. Hence these writ petitions by them. 6. Reply to the writ petition has been filed in some of the writ pettions by Mr. Ravi Bhansali and Narendra Rajpurohit representing the respondents. 7. Mr. S.L. Jain, Mr. N.L. Joshi, Mr. RDS Kharlia, counsels appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions: i) Since earlier Mandi Yard notified way back in the year 1961 was denotified and new Mandi Yard was notified by KUMS, Pilibanga, respondent No.2, therefore, condition No.4(3) in Allotment policy of 2005 could not be imposed and such restrictions would illegally deprive the petitioners of their right of allotment in new Mandi Yard because even if one of the partners of the applicant firm is an existing partner of another firm or old partnership firm, it is not reasonable and valid to exclude such new appicant firm from the eligibility zone of consideration of applicants and therefore, this condition could not have been invoked to reject their applications in the course of previous allotment in pursuance of notifiction dtd. 12.2.2008 Annex.2 quoted above. ii) Since similar reason is likely to be invoked for considering the fresh applications for allotment of 27 shops notified vide Annex.7 dtd. 12.2.2008 Annex.2 quoted above. ii) Since similar reason is likely to be invoked for considering the fresh applications for allotment of 27 shops notified vide Annex.7 dtd. 11.4.2011, quoted above, they are entitled to a mandamus direction to the respondent - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to allot remaining 27 shops in preference to the petitioners over the other applicants. iii) Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, representing the petitioner in SBCWP No.4864/2011 - M/s. Radheshyam Ramswaroo also submitted that the Policy Gudelines of 205 were further amended vide amending notification (Annex.2), dtd. 14.10.2012 whereby clause 4 (4) was added under the Policy Guidelines and therefore, the petitioner's case deserves to be considered in accordance with the amended provisions of law, according to which since they had been in the senioritylist on the basis of turn over that fell below the cut off limit, therefore, as per theamended law, their ineligibility was removed and the petitioner's case accordingly deserves to be considered in the light of the amended position. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they may be allotted the shops in pursuance of subsequent notification dtd. 11.4.2011 for 27 shops. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Narendra Rajpurohit for Mr. Ravi Bhansali submitted that as far as the criteria in allotment policy of turn over and partnership in other firm is concerned, they are perfectly just and legal criteria and the purpose is obviously to encurage the persns with higher turn over to shift to new Mandi Yard in which 254 shops/plots in question have been demarcated and to avoid those applicants whose partners are already existing partners in other partnership firms carrying on said business, so that the new traders can be introduced in new Mandi area and therefore, these criteria provided in the allotment policy are reasonbel and completely valid and the application of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti at the time of earlier allotment of 227 shops and since the petitioners have already applied for subsequent allotment of 27 shops also in pursuance of subsequent notification dtd. 11.4.201 (Annex.7), their application is bound to be considered according to the existing law in the form of Allotment Policy of 2005 as amended vide Annex.2 dtd. 14.10.2010 in SBCWP No. 4864/2011 - M/s Radheshyam Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 11.4.201 (Annex.7), their application is bound to be considered according to the existing law in the form of Allotment Policy of 2005 as amended vide Annex.2 dtd. 14.10.2010 in SBCWP No. 4864/2011 - M/s Radheshyam Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and it is premature for this Court to interfere with said decision making process for allotment of 27 shops now to be undertaken by the respondent - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, which was stalled because of interim orders granted in some of the writ petitions in the present set of writ petitions. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case and relevant statues and judgments cited at the Bar. 10. Relevant portion of Clause 4 of the Allotment Policy of 205 deserves a mention here. The said clause 4 only applies to first phase of allotment while clause 7 deals with 2nd phase of allotment. Therefore, both these clauses 4 and 7 of the said allotment policy are reproduced hereunder including Clause 4(4) inserted vide amending notification dtd. 14.10.2010 Annex.2 in SBCWP No.4864/2011 - Radheshyam Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. The said clause 4 only applies to first phase of allotment while clause 7 deals with 2nd phase of allotment. Therefore, both these clauses 4 and 7 of the said allotment policy are reproduced hereunder including Clause 4(4) inserted vide amending notification dtd. 14.10.2010 Annex.2 in SBCWP No.4864/2011 - Radheshyam Ramswaroop vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. ^^4- izFke pj.k ds vkoaVu ds fy, ik=rk% ¼1½ izFke pj.k ds vkoavu ds esaoy ,sls ^^d** oxZ nyky] la;qä O;kikjh o O;kikjh oxZ ds vuqKki=/kkjh gh vkoaVu ds ik= gksaxs tks fd v?kksf"kr fd;s tkus okys e.Mh izkax.k ,oa ekdsZV ,fj;k esa vofLFkr gksa ,oa O;olk; dj jgs gks rFkk fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds rgr vkoaVu ds ik= gksaA ¼2½ ,sls vuqKk/kkjh ftUgksaus vkoaVu ds fy, izkFkZuk i= izkIr djus dh lwpuk tkjh gksus okys o"kZ ls Bhd iwoZ o"kZ ds 3 foÙkh; o"kksZ esa vf/klwfpr —f"k ftUlksa dk VuZvkWoj ugha fd;k tks] vkoaVu gsrq vik= gksaxsA ¼3½ fdlh vuqKk/kkjh QeZ ds Hkkxhnkj ;fn vU; QeZ esa Hkh Hkkxhnkj gksa rks ,slh vU; QesZ vkoaVu ds fy, vik= gksxhA vuqKk/kkfj;ksa dks vkoaVu gsrq vkosnu djrs le; vkosnu i= esa ;g Li"V djuk gksxk fd os fdruh QeksZa esa Hkkxhnkj gS o mlesa ls dkSu lh ,d QeZ gsrq vkoaVu pkgrs gSA ¼4½ izFke pj.k esa ,sls vkosnudrkZ tks vuqKk i=/kkjh gksus ds mijkUr Hkh bl vuqPNsn 2 ds izko/kkukUrxZr vkoaVu foKfIr ls xr rhu o"kksZa esa fujUrj O;olk;jr u gksus ds dkj.k vFkkZr foKIr —f"k ftUlksa dk VuZvkWoj ugha djus ds dkj.k vik= dj fn;s tkrs gSa] mUgsa f}rh; pj.k dh Hkkafr ,oa nj ij vkoaVu fd;k tkosA rkfd izFke pj.k ds lHkh vuqKki=/kkjh vkosndksa dks vkoaVu gks ldsA** ^^7- f}rh; ,oa i'pkrorhZ pj.kksa dk vkoaVu% ¼1½ fZ}rh; ,oa i'pkr~orhZ pj.kksa esa pqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.M ;k nqdkuksa dk vkoaVu ,sls vuqKki=/kkjh vkosnd dks gh fd;k tkosxk ftUgksaus vkoaVu ds o"kZ ls Bhd iwoZ ds de ls de ,d foÙkh; o"kZ esa vf/klwfpr —f"k ftUlksa dk O;olk; fd;k gks] ijUrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr nj dh Ms< xquk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku djus ij ,sls vkosndksa dks Hkh Hkw[k.M ;k nqdku vkoafVr dh tk ldsxh ftUgksaus iwoZ esa vf/klwfpr —f"k ftUlksa dk O;olk; ugha fd;k gksA nksuksaA Js.kh;ksa ds vkosndksa dh la[;k ds vk/kkj ij Hkw[k.Mksa dh la[;k dk Js.khnkj fu/kkZj.k fd;k tks;xkA ¼2½ vkoaVu dh nj Mh-,y-lh- dh ,slh izfr'kr jkf'k gksxh tks fd jkT; ljdkj }kjkfu/kkZfjr dh tkosA ijUrq ;g nj fudVre {ks= dh fjdks nj ls de ugha gksxhA ¼3½ vkoaVu 49 o"khZ; yht ds vk/kkj ij gksxkA ¼4½ vkoafVr nqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.M@nqdku dh jkf'k dk Hkqxrku vkoaVu ds le; ,d eq'r fd;k tkosxkA ¼5½ vkoaVu gsrq miyC/k nqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.Mksa@nqdkuksa ij vkoaVu ls iwoZ nqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.M@nqdku dh uEcfjax dk dk;Z vkoaVu lfefr }kjk fd;k tkosxkA f}rh; ,oa i'pkorhZ pj.kksa esa nqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.M ;k nqdku dk vkoaVu] ik= vkosndksa dks ykWVjh i)fr ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxkA ,sls vkoaVu ds lkFk vuqKk/kkfj;ksa dh lwph lekIr gks tkosxhA vxyh okj vkoaVu gsrq iqu% vkosnu i= vkeqf-r fd;s tkosaxsa ,oa rnkuqlkj nqdkuksa ds Hkw[k.M@nqdkuksa dk vkoaVu fd;k tk ldsxkA fu/kkZfjr nj dh Ms< xq.kk jkf'k ij Hkw[k.M@nqdku ysu sokys vkosndksa dh la[;k miyc/k Hkw[k.M@nqdkuksa ls vf/kd gksus ij vkoaVu ykWVjh ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxkA ¼6½ vkoafVr Hkw[k.M vFkok nqdku dh jkf'k dh 2-5% jkf'k okf"kZd yht ds :i esa vkoaVh }kjk ns; gksxhA yht jkf'k esa izR;sd 10 o"kZ i'pkr~ 25% dh o`f) dh tkosxhA vkoaVh }kjk yht jkf'k dh 10 xq.kk jkf'k ,d eq'r tek djokus ij vkoaVh dks yht jkf'k ls eqä fd;k tk ldsxkA** 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the extent of challenge to the criteria prescribed under Clause 4(3) deserves to be noticed by this Court only to be rejected. This Court sees no unreasonableness and discriminatory classification, arbitrariness of perversity in the said criteria provided in the Allotment Policy, 2005. The criteria of turn over as well as criteria of any partner of applicant firm not being an existing parner of another already existing partnership firm are perfectly just, legal and valid criterias. The purpose of same is apparent and clear, namely to promote the persons with higher turnover to undertake their business in new Mandi Yard, while excluding the existing business firms whose partners are also partners in new applicant firms, in order to encourage the new traders whose partners and proprietors are not already existing licensed traders of agriculture produce. The classification to made for excluded categories of applicants for allotment of plots/shops in new MandiYard of Pilibanga laid down in the Allotment Policy, 2005, which is applicable to the State of Rajasthan as a whole, appears to be absolutely bonafide, legal and reasonable. The said challenge, therefore, fails and is hereby rejected. 12. As far as the consideration of the respective applications of the petitioners for the second phase of allotment of 27 shops in pursuance of notification (Annex.7) dtd. 11.4.2011 is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the wrti petitions are premature. Admittedly, the allotment of second pahse of allotment of 27 shops undertaken in pursuance of Annex.7 dtd. 11.4.2007 has not yet been completed by the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. They are bound to undertake that decision making process as per existing policy of 2005 as amended by notification dtd. 14.10.2010 and as fairly submitted by thelearned counsel for the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti tha they are is boundto consider the applications for these 27 shops/plots in accordance with existing law. This Court is of the opinionthat no mandamus or directions is required to be given to the respondens to comply and abide by the existing policy guidelines of 2005 as amended in 2010 at the time of considerationof the respective applications of the present petitioners and others who may not have even filed the writ petitions before this Court, but whose applications are pneidng before the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga. 13. 13. The contention of the learned counsels for the petitioners is that they will have the preference over other applicants because of their existing business and despite their partners being existing partners in other firms also does not have any merit since criteria of such classification has already been upheld by this Court as indicated above. The fresh applications for second phase of allotment of 27 shops are also bound to be considered only as per the existing Policy guidelines for which no premature intervention can be made by this Court in the present set of writ petitions. It is only after such allotments are made taking a considered decision by the respondent Krhsi Upaj Mandi Saiti and if the petitioners are aggrieved with tehsame on justifiable reasons that a cause ofaction can be said to have arisen to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdciton of this Court or avail other appropriae legal remedy in accordance with law. It would be premature to cosndier the claim of the petitioners in absence of those who are applicants, but are not before this court at this stage. There isno justification to prejudge the decson making process of he respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti for allotment of the said 27 shops yet to be made by them. Therefre, only after such allotment is made and that the petitioners may make out a ground for assaining those decisions of 27 shops that they may be permitted to avail appropriate legal remedy. 14. The judgments cited at Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of M/s. Labha Ram and sons vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 SC 2086 wherein it was observed that in para 16 and 17 of the judgment by the Apex court that in the mater of allotment of plots/shops in new market yard, the existing traders should be given preference. The preference to the erstwhile dealers may not be by providing free allotment of building or plots or allotment at a rate which is below the reserved price. The Government may fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, but such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. 15. The preference to the erstwhile dealers may not be by providing free allotment of building or plots or allotment at a rate which is below the reserved price. The Government may fix up any rate above the reserved price for such licensed dealers, but such fixation should not be at unreasonable rates. 15. The said judgment is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, since no such cases is made out in the present set of facts where the application of he petitoner has been rejected on valid grounds in the first phase of allotment of shops, whereas fresh applications for second phase of allotments are yet to be decided and as far as rate of allotment of plot in question are concerned, the same has already been delineated in the notifications published as quoted above on DLC rates or at 1½ times of DLC Rate in case of new applicants as the case may be, but that is not the question requiring cosndieration at the present stage. 16. The other judgments cited at the bar in the case of AIR 2010 (SC) 6885 - Gainda Ram vs. M.C.D. And Ors. is also not applicable in the facts of the present case. In the said case, while dealing with the case of street hawkers in light of Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held tha the schemes framed by the Municipal Corporation or Municipal Council for such street hawkers do not have statutory force and law regulating street haswking is necessary and therefore, the Court framed a particular scheme for hawkers to continue with regulated Scheme till the appropriate law is enacted. On the basis of this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitone sought to contend that the present petitioners deserves to be given preference as they have righ to carry on the business in the new Mandi area since the earlier area has been denotified. The cited judgmen twith great respects is of little avail to the petitioners in the present case. The street haskers for whom Scheme was framed by the Apex Court have hardly any parity with the business traders whose business is regulated under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act and Allotment Policy of 2005 as quoted above. Therefore, this judgment is fo no avail to the petitioner. 17. The street haskers for whom Scheme was framed by the Apex Court have hardly any parity with the business traders whose business is regulated under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act and Allotment Policy of 2005 as quoted above. Therefore, this judgment is fo no avail to the petitioner. 17. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.