JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellants have preferred this misc. appeal claiming the following relief :- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Case No.138/2018 may be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to allot plots to the appellate between Block A to I in front face from 49 vacant plots reserved by the respondent authorities. Any other order/relief which your Lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the appellant." 2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellants have instituted the suit proceedings on account of being holders of the valid license issued by the respondentMandi Samiti, and they are operating their business from the plots allotted to them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government of Rajasthan, vide its order dated 29.12.2015, decided to shift Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Paota to Savitri Phule Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti situated at Bhadwasia. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that such shifting was to take place as per the Rajasthan Immovable Allotment Policy, 2005 and Mandi Premises Transfer Policy, 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Policy of 2013 was to be strictly adhered to. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there were total 158 shop owners, who were registered as Retailers and/or A-Category Brokers and were to be shifted from Paota to Bhadwasia. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Allotment Policy of 2005 required a preferential treatment to be given to the traders/shop owners/brokers, like the present appellants, under priority Clauses 3/7 and 3/8 of the Policy of 2013 before shifting to the new premises at Bhadwasia. As per learned counsel for the appellants, there are vacant shops, and therefore, shifting them to such new premises though could have been held by the lottery system, but the lottery should have been for a particular front face/row, whereas the appellants have been given shops on the rear side. 7. As per learned counsel for the appellants, there are vacant shops, and therefore, shifting them to such new premises though could have been held by the lottery system, but the lottery should have been for a particular front face/row, whereas the appellants have been given shops on the rear side. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Mandi Administration had 162 plots available in Block A to I, and therefore, for the purpose of allotment of 225 plots, and 162 plots out of them, should have been allocated in Blocks A to I and the remaining Blocks J to N could not have been included therefor. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondents have committed an illegality by reserving 12 plots for female agriculturists and 49 plots on their whims and fancies, without giving priority to the appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the action of the respondents was challenged before this Hon'ble Court under the writ jurisdiction by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 (M/s. Ummaid Singh Ramchandra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which was dismissed on 18.08.2017, but when the appeal being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.834/2017 was preferred against the said order, while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 10.10.2017, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had given liberty to the appellants to file a civil suit in relation to their civil rights. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that since the appellants gave representation for ventilating their grievances in relation to their civil rights, but the same was not responded and such grievances were never redressed by the respondents, therefore, suit was filed and temporary injunction was sought thereby. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned court below has, at length, dealt with the issue of priority allotment and has rejected the claim of the appellants vide the impugned order dated 16.07.2019. The relevant portion of the said order dated 16.07.2019 reads as under: 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the dispute in question has already been adjudicated by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dismissing the said writ petition, while upholding the legality of the order. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the dispute in question has already been adjudicated by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 and the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the order dismissing the said writ petition, while upholding the legality of the order. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the complete case of the priority, as has been tried to be made out by learned counsel for the appellants, has already been dealt with by this Hon'ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 vide its order dated 18.08.2017, relevant portion of which reads as under: From perusal of clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013, it is clear that it provides that if there is 100% consensus between the licence holders for allotment of plots out of the available plots, then the allotment shall be made as per the consensus/agreement. In case, no consensus/agreement is arrived then the allotment shall be made through lottery. The term mentioned in clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013 ^^miyC/k Hkw[k.Mks^^ means available plots. Admittedly, in all 225 plots are available in the New Sabji Mandi, Bhadvasia and all are measuring 18x50 feet each. There is no provision in the Policy of 2013 that in case of non-agreement or no consensus between the traders, having preferential right, for allotment of plots out of available plots, lottery will be drawn for particular blocks. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioners to the effect that they are entitled for allotment of plots in Block A to I only, is not tenable. Admittedly, all the 158 traders of Paota Sabji Mandi have not arrived at a consensus for allotment of plots out of the available plots. The same is evident from the averments made in their writ petitions. Admittedly, all the 158 traders of Paota Sabji Mandi have not arrived at a consensus for allotment of plots out of the available plots. The same is evident from the averments made in their writ petitions. The relevant portion of SBCWP No.11558/2016 reads as under: "There being five Union in the existing Sabji Mandi of Paota and all the Unions did not agree as per the clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013, hence the respondents ordered for the allotment of plot of shops through lottery among the existing lease/licence holders, 158 members through lottery." The relevant portion of SBCWP No.4229/2017 reads as under: "That in lieu of letter dated 19.2.2016, the petitioner Sangh wrote a letter dated 26.2.2016 wherein it was submitted that the consent of the members was obtained for allotment of plots blockwise, however, consent for allotment plotwise could not be obtained." The respondents along with their reply has also placed on record the letters written by the different Unions of traders dated 26.02.2016 by which it is evident that no consensus or agreement was arrived at between 158 traders. The relevant letters dated 26.02.2016 are reproduced hereunder: From the above letters, it is clear that though Sabji Dalal Sangh has specifically requested for making allotment of plots as per the lottery as no consensus arrived at between the traders, however, the Sabji-Phal Dalal Sangh though has stated that no consensus arrived at between the traders but has prayed that the allotment of plot through lottery be done from Plot No. 1 to 164 only.As stated earlier, there is no provision under the Policy of 2013 for allotment of plots blockwise or from particular blocks and in case of no agreement or consensus arrived at between the traders, the allotment is to be made as per lottery. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to enlarge the scope of a policy or rewrite, recast or reframe the policy. In other words, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to legislate and where language of provision is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot add words to it or read words into it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. In other words, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no power to legislate and where language of provision is plain and unambiguous, the Court cannot add words to it or read words into it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Deoki nandan Aggarwal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 96 has held as under:- "14......It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. The Court cannot re- write, recast or reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been conferred on the courts. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature the Court could not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. Courts shall decide what the law is and not what it should be. The Court of course adopts a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature but could not legislate itself. But to invoke judicial activism to set at naught legislative judgment is subversive of the constitutional harmony and comity of instrumentalities. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries,1990 1 SCR 482 at p. 488: Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi,1965 5 SCR 239: ( AIR 1965 SC 101 ), Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, (1959) Supp1 SCR 489 : ( AIR 1959 SC 459 ) . Smt. Hira Devi & Ors. Vide P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries,1990 1 SCR 482 at p. 488: Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi,1965 5 SCR 239: ( AIR 1965 SC 101 ), Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. The State of Bombay, (1959) Supp1 SCR 489 : ( AIR 1959 SC 459 ) . Smt. Hira Devi & Ors. v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, (1952) SCR 1122 at 1131 : ( AIR 1952 SC 362 at p. 365), Nalinkhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors., (1953) SCR 533 at 545: ( AIR 1953 SC 148 at p. 152), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdaor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCR 146 : S. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam & Ors., (1973) 1 SCR 172 at p. 182; N.S. Vardachari v. G. Vasantha Pai & Anr., (1973) 1 SCR 886 : ( AIR 1973 SC 38 ), Union of India v. Sankal Chand Himatlal Sheth & Anr, (1978) 1 SCR 423 : ( AIR 1977 SC 2328 ) and Comm r. of Sales Tax, U.P.v. Auriaya Chamber of Commerce, Allahabad, (1986) 2 SCR 430 at p. 438. Modifying and altering the scheme and applying it to others who are not otherwise entitled to under the scheme, will not also come under the principle of affirmative action adopted by courts some times in order to avoid discrimination. If we may say so, what the High Court has done in this case is a clear and naked usurpation of legislative power. " So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in SBCWP No.4229/2017 that the respondent-Samiti shall consider the applications filed by its members for transfer of plots expeditiously is concerned, it is clear that the State Government has already clarified that the proceedings under clause 23 of the Policy of 2005 can only be initiated after completion of the proceedings provided under clause 3(8) of the Transfer Policy, 2013. A copy of letter of this effect is placed on record as Annexure-R/19 along with additional affidavit filed by respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in SBCWP No.11558/2016. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 14. A copy of letter of this effect is placed on record as Annexure-R/19 along with additional affidavit filed by respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in SBCWP No.11558/2016. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 14. This Court also finds that since every each and every aspect of the appellant's claim has already been taken care of by this Hon'ble Court while adjudicating S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11558/2016 vide order dated 18.08.2017, quoted hereinabove, and once appeal preferred before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court also was dismissed, therefore, no cause has arisen to the appellants to come back to this Court. Moreover, even if there was any civil right, then the same could have been adjudicated, but clearly the learned court below was right in holding that the there is difference between the legal right and civil right, and since the appellants have tried to make out a case on the basis of a legal right out of the administrative circulars/policy, therefore, no civil right accrues to the appellants and the respondents have full authority to conduct the shifting of the mandi in question, which is in the larger interest of the City of Jodhpur as well as the traders themselves. Even otherwise, organized trading would not only be beneficial for the traders, but would also enhance their trade. 15. This Court further finds that the liberty given to the appellants by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 10.10.2017, was only to the extent of civil rights, but here in this case, it is only a right mode of allotment, which has to be chosen by the authority and the same will always be disputed by the participants on one count or the other. 16. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding scope of judicial review observed as under:- "16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review (vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, (1989) Supp2 SCC 364 , Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223 , Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304 , BALCO Employees Unionv. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 , State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, (2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1225] and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162 ) " 17. In DDA v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down certain parameters for making interference in the policy decision, while observing thus: "64. An executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Whereas the superior courts may not interfere with the nitty-gritty of the policy, or substitute one by the other but it will not be correct to contend that the court shall lay its judicial hands off, when a plea is raised that the impugned decision is a policy decision. Interference therewith on the part of the superior court would not be without jurisdiction as it is subject to judicial review. 65. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: (a) if it is unconstitutional; (b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy." 18. 65. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: (a) if it is unconstitutional; (b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy." 18. In West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Abdul Halim & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5824/2019 decided on 24.07.2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. 32. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect." 19. In light of the aforesaid observations and the precedent laws referred above, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect." 19. In light of the aforesaid observations and the precedent laws referred above, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Stay application No.1519/2019 also stands dismissed accordingly.