JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged rejection of his application for allotment of plot by the allotment committee in its meeting held on 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009. 2. The allotment committee has rejected petitioner's application on the ground that two entries have been made for the petitioner in the survey list - Entry No.16 - Ridmal Singh S/o Shri Binjraj Singh for Mohan Murli Mills, Bajrang Bari, Pali and entry at S.No.30 of the survey list Mohan Murli Mills, Bajarang Bari, Pali, through Proprietor Reedmal Singh S/o Shri Binjraj Singh and a plot admeasuring 1000 sq. meters has already been allotted to Mr. Ridmal Singh. 3. According to RIICO, the entries mentioned at S.No.16 and 30 reproduced above, refer to one common party namely M/s. Mohan Murli Mills, whose proprietor is Reedmal Singh S/o Shri Binjraj Singh and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of another plot. 4. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was operating two units in Bajarant Bari area, which is evident from the entries in Survey list at S.No.16 and 30. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of two industrial plots for/in lieu of two units being operated by him. 5. Mr. Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel appearing for RIICO opposed petitioner's prayer and contended that as a matter of fact, one person cannot operate two units and as a matter of fact two units in one name were not operating. He added that it is nothing but an inadvertent error, which has crept in while preparing the survey list and petitioner cannot take advantage of such error and stake his claim for allotment of two plots. It was also asserted that as per original record of RIICO, only one unit was operating in the area and thus, one plot has been allotted, petitioner cannot be allotted two industrial plots, maintained Mr. Purohit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, including survey list, this Court is of the considered opinion that two names mentioned at Serial No.16 and 30 are in essence one. Merely because of change in firm's name vis-a-vis proprietory, petitioner cannot claim that he was operating two units in Bajrang Bari, Pali. 7. Merely because of change in firm's name vis-a-vis proprietory, petitioner cannot claim that he was operating two units in Bajrang Bari, Pali. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner has been allotted one industrial plot of 1000 sq. meters at G1-18(E) and thus he is not entitled for second plot in the same name. 8. This Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 9. Stay petition also stands dismissed.