JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition was filed challenging the decision taken by the Allotment Committee headed by District Collector, Pali in its meeting dated 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009 whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of industrial plot in Industrial Area Punayata, Pali was rejected. 2. The facts relevant and necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are noted here-in-below for the sake of reference. 3. A large number of textile industries were established within the municipal areas of Pali which were operating in an indiscriminate and haphazard manner which resulted into mass scale pollution to the land as well as water bodies of town and its surrounding areas. A public interest litigation being D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 759/2002 : Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. came to be filed by one Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti raising issues regarding environmental hazards and industrial malactivities being caused by the unauthorized industries many of which were in operation even in the residential areas of Pali. 4. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court issued detailed directions thereby mandating the establishment of a new industrial area and for shifting of the existing industries to such an area which would mandatorily be equipped with all necessary measures so as to prevent further damage to the environment. The substratum of directions given by Division Bench of this Court in the said PIL vide order dated 09.03.2004 is reproduced here-in-below for sake of ready reference:- "I. The Pollution Control Board shall immediately make fresh inspection of the Textile Processing Units at Pali and surrounding areas and in case any of the units are found to be creating pollution and not connected to the CETPs shall be closed. II. The units which are creating pollution shall adopt measures to eliminate pollution. III. RIICO shall set up industrial area at a suitable place exclusively for textile processing units. The industrial area must be located at an appropriate distance from residential areas. RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter. IV. The trust shall make modification in the CETP so that the emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. RIICO shall set up the industrial area within a period of six months and the industry shall be shifted to the industrial area from residential areas immediately thereafter. IV. The trust shall make modification in the CETP so that the emissions therefrom are compatible with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board. V. The industrial units which are discharging the industrial pollutant on the land or/and river shall be closed forthwith. VI. The State shall employee experts to assess the damage caused to the environment and health of the public by the pollution created by the Units. On assessment of the damage, the concerned authority shall file a report in this court within a period of eight weeks, whereupon the question of payment of compensation by the units on the principles of polluter pays shall be determined." 5. Accordingly, a new industrial area was carved out in Village Punayata, District Pali; requisite surveys were conducted and a list was prepared by the District Industrial Centre, Pali for allotment of fresh industrial plots. The industrial area thus created comprised of 333 plots. The process of allotment was initiated in the year 2005. The first survey list dated 11.07.2005 prepared by the DIC included names of as many as 255 incumbents. The second survey list dated 02.09.2008 contained names of 32 industries whereas the third survey list contained names of 61 industries of which 37 were common to the earlier list/s. Applications for allotment were invited from the incumbents whose names were included in these survey lists which were also approved by the Collector. The aspirants were required to submit the title proof viz. (1) allotment letter/patta if the land was within municipal area or the Jamabandi in case if the industry was established on agricultural land; (2) electricity bill; & (3) affidavit to the effect that the existing industry had been closed down. First Phase of Allotment. 6. After completion of survey, the respondent RIICO issued advertisement in the month of July, 2005 and August, 2005 inviting applications from such industries/factories whose names formed part of the existing survey list for the purpose of making allotment of industrial plots. The first phase of allotment was completed in view of decision taken by the Allotment Committee in its meeting dated 03.09.2005 wherein total 148 plots were allotted to various industries. Second Phase of Allotment. 7. The first phase of allotment was completed in view of decision taken by the Allotment Committee in its meeting dated 03.09.2005 wherein total 148 plots were allotted to various industries. Second Phase of Allotment. 7. The second round of allotment was undertaken on 12.12.2005 & 20.12.2005 respectively wherein it was stipulated that even those persons whose names were not mentioned in the survey list would be entitled to apply alongwith the required title proof and the allotment would be made after proper spot inspection. A total of 69 allotments were made in the second phase. Third Phase of Allotment 8. The third phase of allotment was ensued thereafter vide advertisements dated 13.05.2009 & 14.05.2009 and tenants were also allowed to apply therein with the pre-condition that they were eligible and the landlord gave an undertaking that he would not claim the plot in future. In the third phase as many as 52 allotments were made. A total of 63 plots remained vacant at this point of time. 9. The petitioner and numerous other aspirants claiming to be existing industrialists who for one or other reason could not stake a claim for allotment or had been denied such opportunity in the first three phases approached this Court by way of a bunch of writ petition seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents so as to allot them an industrial plot each from the remaining 63 plots in the Punayata Industrial Scheme. 10. The entire bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No. 1186/2010 : Nandu Dyeing vs RIICO Ltd. was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2013. The respondent RIICO challenged the Single Bench judgment by filing a special appeal which came to be allowed by order dated 11.07.2016 in the leading case being D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 766/2013 and the order dated 19.12.2016 passed in Special Appeal (Writ) No. 781/2013. 11. Upon remand, most of the petitioners have filed amended writ petitions for challenging the decision/s of the allotment committee whereby, it has rejected their prayer to be allotted the remaining vacant plots. 12. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Allotment Committee in rejecting its application solely on the ground that in survey list, name of both landlord Lovely Prints and tenant Shwet Shilp Industries has been shown. 12. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Allotment Committee in rejecting its application solely on the ground that in survey list, name of both landlord Lovely Prints and tenant Shwet Shilp Industries has been shown. One plot i.e., Plot No. E-248 has already been allotted to the landlord Lovely Prints. Further there had been a change in the constitution of the firm and the same has been converted from a proprietorship firm to partnership firm. 13. Assailing the validity of the said reason for rejection of the application, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner stated that the Allotment Committee has acted in a hyper-technical manner and has rejected the application of the petitioner on erroneous assumptions. The Allotment Committee failed to take note of an important aspect of the matter that the State Authorities while conducting survey have clearly found two industries functional on one chunk of land and therefore, the names of Lovely Prints as well as the petitioner Shwet Shilp Industries were included in the first survey list and that independent of the landlord Lovely Prints, notices were also issued to the petitioner Shwet Shilp Industries by the Pollution Control Board and after the judgment passed by this Court, even the JdVVNL, Pali has issued separate notice for disconnection of petitioner's electricity connection. It has been contended that although, situated on the same piece of land as the landlord, the petitioner Shwet Shilp Industry was running as an independent industry and the same has been closed down under the directions of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the Allotment Committee has not considered the application as well as the documents submitted alongwith the same in an objective manner and thus, requested for interference of this Court. 14. Per contra, supporting the reason recorded by the Allotment Committee for rejecting the petitioner's application, it was contended by Shri Sanjeet Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents that in reference to the details of industry mentioned at Sr. No. 23 of the first survey list, a plot No. E-248 has already been allotted to the landlord Lovely Prints and therefore, second plot cannot be allotted in lieu of the same. No. 23 of the first survey list, a plot No. E-248 has already been allotted to the landlord Lovely Prints and therefore, second plot cannot be allotted in lieu of the same. It was further stated that as a matter of fact, there had been a change in the constitution of the firm and same was converted from proprietorship firm to partnership firm just with a view to ensure entitlement of an industrial plot in newly developed industrial area. In order to discourage and deprecate such practice, the Allotment Committee has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner firm. Counsel for the respondent RIICO submitted that the rejection of the petitioner's application is based upon a sound reasoning and the same can in no case be called as erroneous or illegal. 15. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the material available on record. 16. Although, it clearly emerges from the facts of the case that in relation to the entry No. 23 of the first survey list, a plot No. E-248 has already been allotted to Lovely Prints, yet this Court cannot ignore an important aspect of the matter that unlike other entries of the survey list, the serial No. 23 specifically contains the name of another industry i.e., Shwet Shilp Industries as a tenant upon the same industrial plot. Thus, it can safely be presumed that on the said plot, two industries i.e., Lovely Prints as well as Shwet Shilp Industries were found functional and therefore, the names of both the industries were included in the survey list. The documents annexed with the present writ petition i.e., copy of notice issued by JdVVNL (Annexure-1) and notices issued by RPCB attached as Annexure-2 clearly establishes that M/s. Shwet Shilp Industries was functioning independently at Shastri Nagar, Bajrangwadi, Pali and the same has been closed down under the orders of this Court. Thus, the claim of the petitioner was definitely required to be considered independently by the Allotment Committee. 17. The petitioner in para 6 of the writ petition has given details of the instances where the industrial plots have been allotted to the landlords and tenants both, while examining their independent claims on the basis of their respective documents. The said peculiar fact as mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition was not specifically disputed on behalf of the respondents. The said peculiar fact as mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition was not specifically disputed on behalf of the respondents. In such circumstance, the non-consideration of the petitioner's application by the Allotment Committee merely on the count that one plot has already been allotted to the landlord, clearly tantamounts to hostile discrimination qua the petitioner and denial of equal treatment by the Allotment Committee is manifest on the face of record. 18. With regard to the factum of change in the constitution of firm, it was stated at bar that the change in the constitution of firm was absolutely bona fide and the same has taken place much prior to the judgment dated 09.03.2004. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that admittedly, when the change of constitution of firm occurred in the month of May, 2003 and the firm with newly added partners was functioning and running the business of firm even prior to passing of judgment by the Division Bench of this Court, its claim cannot be rejected for this reason. The petitioner firm was having the present composition at the time of judgment passed by the Court and thus, is undoubtedly entitled to just consideration of its application for allotment of industrial plots. Therefore, the reason assigned by the Allotment Committee for rejecting the application of the petitioner firm is absolutely alien to the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. The Allotment Committee ought to have considered the application of the petitioner firm on the basis of the supporting documents submitted by them. 19. As a matter of fact, the entire exercise of shifting of the industries has been undertaken in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in public interest on 09.03.2004. The whole premise of giving such detailed directions was to provide a sustainable solution for the rehabilitation of the world famous textile industries of Pali District. This Court has not only ordered for closure of industries creating and contributing to the pollution in the non-conforming area but has also given specific directions to shift the existing industries to a well developed new industrial area. This Court has not only ordered for closure of industries creating and contributing to the pollution in the non-conforming area but has also given specific directions to shift the existing industries to a well developed new industrial area. It is worth mentioning that the said directions to shift and rehabilitate the industries were given in order to protect their fundamental right to freely carry on their trade or business as enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, as well as to provide healthy and hygienic environment to the district Pali and to uphold the fundamental right to life and liberty of the citizens enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is quite unfortunate to observe that despite more than fourteen years having elapsed since this Court issued detailed directions for arresting pollution and rehabilitation of the industries, the said order has not been complied with in its right spirit till date. It further pains the Court that the State Authorities have adopted a hyper-technical approach which has given rise to multiple rounds of litigation continuing over the past more than one decade. 20. In view of above and in my considered opinion, the reason for rejection of the petitioner's application as given by the Allotment Committee in the minutes of the meetings held on 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009 is wholly bereft of justification and misconceived. 21. The writ petition is allowed. The communications issued by the Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 29.09.2009 and 05.11.2009 rejecting the petitioner's application are thereby quashed and set aside. The Allotment Committee is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner afresh in an objective manner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-. 1. The petitioner is directed to file fresh application alongwith all the necessary documents to prove its eligibility for its respective claim seeking allotment of an industrial plot and deposit the requisite charges on or before 15.05.2019. 2. In case, if the petitioner's original application or requisite charges are already submitted with the respondent RIICO, the petitioner will be granted one time opportunity to submit additional necessary documents, if any in support of its claim to the respondent RIICO on or before 15.05.2019. 3. 2. In case, if the petitioner's original application or requisite charges are already submitted with the respondent RIICO, the petitioner will be granted one time opportunity to submit additional necessary documents, if any in support of its claim to the respondent RIICO on or before 15.05.2019. 3. The Allotment Committee is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh for allotment of existing plots in industrial area, Punayata, Pali objectively while taking into consideration the documentary proof submitted by the petitioner and pass reasoned order in this regard. The said exercise for scrutiny of the application submitted by all the petitioner as well as the allotment of industrial plot (if found eligible) shall be positively completed by the Allotment Committee on or before 30.06.2019. 4. While adjudging the entitlement of the applicant, the Allotment Committee shall act strictly in accordance with law and shall take into account the following factors: (i). Preferably the name of the industry is included/shown in any of the survey lists prepared by the State Authorities including the list prepared by the District Industries Centre, Pali. (ii). The applicant has submitted the relevant documents as required in the advertisement issued by the RIICO for making allotment of industrial plot. (iii). The applicant has produced the documentary proof showing the existence and functioning of the industry prior to passing of the judgment of this Court in the year 2004. 5. The Allotment Committee is expected to undertake and complete the entire process for scrutiny of claims of the respective applicants for the purpose of shifting of industries strictly in accordance with law and while avoiding unnecessary technicalities. The Allotment Committee shall make positive efforts so as to ensure proper and complete compliance of the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in its judgment dated 09.03.2004 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2002 : Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan in its true letter and spirit. 22. No order as to costs.