JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming allotment of an alternative plot by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter ‘the RIICO’) in lieu of plot No.B-20, VKIA Extension (Badrana) Jaipur, which according to the petitioner was allotted to his predecessor-in-interest one Gaurav Bohra on 19-2-2004 by RIICO allegedly disregarding the fact that the allotted plot was under litigation of which no information was conveyed to the allottee rendering RIICO guilty of misrepresentation. 2. The facts of the case are that a residential plot No.B-20, VKIA Extension (Badrana) Jaipur was allotted by RIICO to one Gaurav Bohra and lease executed in his favour on 22-2-2012. Subsequently the said plot was sold by Mr. Bohra to the petitioner vide sale-deed dated 5-2-2013. The petitioner's case is that when he sought to raise construction over the plot in question, it transpired that the plot in question was the subject matter of a civil suit filed by one Choti Devi against RIICO, she had obtained an injunction order against RIICO with the court directing status quo and restraining construction on the plot in issue. In the circumstances, according to the petitioner RIICO was duty bound in law to rectify its mischief and illegality and allot an alternative residential plot of equivalent value in the same industrial area to the petitioner as successor-in-interest of the original allottee. 3. On service of notice, RIICO has filed a reply and stated that the petitioner has no locus standi or cause of action to file the writ petition as the plot in question was allotted to one Gaurav Manak Bohra. The original allottee Bohra was handed over peaceful possession of the plot in question. Subsequently after seeking extension of time to raise construction, as otherwise required under the lease deed, the lessee had constructed a boundary wall and a room over the plot in question and obtained an electricity connection. With regard to suit laid by Choti Devi against RIICO, it has been submitted that it was with regard to Khasra No.959 and she had obtained an injunction against her dispossession from a house purportedly built by her thereon, but the said suit did not relate to the plot in question leased to Gaurav Bohra. With regard to suit laid by Choti Devi against RIICO, it has been submitted that it was with regard to Khasra No.959 and she had obtained an injunction against her dispossession from a house purportedly built by her thereon, but the said suit did not relate to the plot in question leased to Gaurav Bohra. It has been further submitted that as required in terms of the lease, no permission for its assignment had been sought by the lessee from RIICO. This was contrary to terms and conditions of the lease and regulations of RIICO and the petitioner had not even got transferred the lease deed in her favour. It has been submitted that in the circumstances, the petitioner did not have any privity of contract with RIICO and hence neither had any locus standi nor cause of action to lay the writ petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the residential plot in question through a registered deed from the original lessee and owing to a dispute with regard to the plot in question founded upon RIICO's misrepresentation in the first instance while executing the lease, the petitioner is entitled for allotment/ lease of an alternative residential plot of the same value in the vicinity of the plot earlier leased by RIICO to Gaurav Bohra. 5. Mr. Anil Bhardwaj, counsel for RIICO has submitted that aside of the petitioner lacking locus standi to agitate the present writ petition, the issue agitated is plainly contractual in nature, would entail seriously disputed question of fact more so relating to third party rights (Choti Devi) which are under adjudication in a civil court and the petition is therefore liable to be dismissed as an inappropriate remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that RIICO having executed a lease deed and peaceful possession of the plot in question having been handed over and the original lessee having raised construction, on a belated allegation of the original allotment having been wrongly made over a decade ago, this court should not entertain this writ petition which is a palpable misuse of the process of this court. It has been stated that the plot allotted to Gaurav Bohra is not part of khasra NO. It has been stated that the plot allotted to Gaurav Bohra is not part of khasra NO. 959, VKI Area Badharna Jaipur in respect of which Choti Devi is in litigation with respondent RIICO, the interim order thereon that she should not be dispossessed from a house thereon purportedly built by her is quite irrelevant to the facts of the case under consideration and for this reason too the prayer sought is misdirected and writ petition be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. I am of the considered view that the case set up by the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. The original lessee after allotment of plot in question and execution of lease deed, was handed over peaceful possession of plot in 2004 and he had raised construction thereon after seeking permission from RIICO. The petitioner a subsequent purchaser of the plot in question is in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease executed by RIICO in favour of Gaurav Bohra as no permission has yet been sought from RIICO nor the lease deed transferred to the petitioner. RIICO thus has no privity of contract with the petitioner, who thus cannot be held to either have locus standi or a cause of action against it. Aside of the aforesaid, I find force in the contention of RIICO's counsel that the writ petition is also not maintainable as it agitates an issue of contract without any public law element and if entertained would also entail adjudication of grossly disputed questions of fact, more so of third party rights, such of Choti Devi over the plot in issue as agitated by the petitioner herself (and denied by RIICO). Further RIICO's categorical stand is that the plot in issue is not part of khasra No.959, which is subject matter of litigation at the instance of Choti Devi. Further this writ petition agitates a purported issue of alleged misrepresentation by RIICO while making an allotment in 2004, and doctrine of laches is also obviously operative in such a scenario. For all the reasons above, I find that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. Writ petition dismissed.