JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This application (IA No.2/19) seeking leave to appeal is preferred by the applicants to file special appeal against order dated 2.8.19 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by inter alia the first respondent herein seeking implementation of order dated 5.12.16 passed by the respondent-Director Agriculture Marketing Board, has been allowed. 2. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5.12.16 has decided bunch of writ petitions, however, the application seeking leave to appeal is preferred by the applicants only against the order impugned passed in S.B.C.Writ Petition No.6320/17. 3. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that while declining the prayer of the applicants herein to implead them as party respondents, the learned Single Judge permitted them to intervene in the matter with the observations as under: " As per the Policy of 2013, the allotment in new Mandi is firstly required to be made in favour of the persons, who are having shops in Paota Mandi as per Clause 3(7) of the Policy of 2013. In case some plots remain vacant, they are to be allotted to other dealers, operating in Paota mandi, but who are not having shops. True it is, that the applicant and eight persons have been shown in the list of provisional allottees, but the fact remains that they are not having any shops in the Paota Mandi, for which their cases are required to be considered under clause 3(8) of the Policy of 2013. As such, applicant has no rival or competitive claim vis a vis the petitioner, who has vied for allotment under clause 3(7) of the Policy. Merely because the petitioner's failure in the present writ petition may result in the applicant's success, it does not give them a right to oppose their case as a respondent. The State as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are already there, as respondents to defend their stand. The applicant cannot be heard to support/substantiate the stand of the State. That apart, the list aforesaid is provisional, is evident from the fact that the State has taken a stand that due to inadvertence, 9 persons' claim could not be reckoned. The State as well as Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are already there, as respondents to defend their stand. The applicant cannot be heard to support/substantiate the stand of the State. That apart, the list aforesaid is provisional, is evident from the fact that the State has taken a stand that due to inadvertence, 9 persons' claim could not be reckoned. The respondent No.3 has admitted that in light of the interim order passed in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, they were required to keep one shop for each of the petitioners vacant/reserved. In this view of the matter, it is clear that nine shops, which ought to be earmarked or kept vacant for the petitioners, could not be earmarked and the applicant and persons similarly situated to the applicant have been provisionally depicted in the list, which hardly creates any right in their favour. It is to be noticed that the provisional list of merit, has a clear stipulation that the allotment in furtherance of the list will be subject to the present group of writ petitions. Had the respondents obeyed the interim order of this Court in the letter and spirit, surely, their names would not have been there in the list. Hence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to implead the applicant as a party respondent. However, since the rights of the applicant may be affected by any order passed in the present writ petitions, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the applicant to intervene." 4. The facts relevant are that the official respondents herein decided to shift Savitri Bai Fulle Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal and Sabji), Jodhpur situated at Paota adjacent to the Roadways Bus Stand pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in a Public Interest Litigation. It was decided that the existing licensee carrying on business at Paota Mandi would be shifted to Bhadwasia and the land of Paota Mandi would be handed over to RSRTC, while the land of RSRTC (Depot) existing near Bhadwasia would be handed over to Mandi Samiti for establishment of new Fruit and Vegetables Mandi. As per the decision taken by the State Government, the licensees running wholesale business in vegetables were to be allotted plots in 30 bighas of land in Bhadwasia and the dealers dealing in fruits were to be allotted plots in 11 bighas of land, near Jeera Mandi. As per the decision taken by the State Government, the licensees running wholesale business in vegetables were to be allotted plots in 30 bighas of land in Bhadwasia and the dealers dealing in fruits were to be allotted plots in 11 bighas of land, near Jeera Mandi. The writ petitioners were dealing in vegetables and had applied for allotment of the plots in Vegetable Mandi, however, they were allotted plots in Fruit Mandi. Aggrieved thereby, they preferred an appeal before the Director, Agriculture Produce Market under Section 39 of Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (for short "the Act of 1961"), which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.12.16 and while remanding the matter to Mandi Samiti, directions were issued to take appropriate proceedings for allotment of the shops to the writ petitioners keeping in view nature of their business. Thereafter, the writ petitioners submitted representation on 23.1.17 to immediately change the nature of allotment of the shop treating them as vegetable traders and not as food traders and accordingly, allot the shops at Bhadwasia Mandi after completing the necessary proceedings, but to no avail. In the meantime, the respondent proceeded to issue a notification dated 3.2.17 inviting application for allotment of 49 shops remaining vacant in Bhadwasia Mandi. The writ petitioners filed their objection against the proposed allotment and contended that 9 shops have to be kept vacant for them inasmuch as, the Director of Agriculture Produce Market has also passed an order in their favour. Notwithstanding the order passed by the Director, Agriculture Produce Market as aforesaid, the shops were not allotted to the writ petitioners and therefore, they filed the writ petition before this Court seeking directions in the terms indicated above. 5. In the writ petitions, while issuing notices, interim order was passed by this Court in favour of the writ petitioners in the following terms: "In the meanwhile, out of 49 shops to be allotted in New Vegetable Mandi, Bhadwasia pursuant to advertisement dated 3.2.17, one shop shall be kept vacant till further orders." 6. However, notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court as aforesaid, the respondent proceeded to publish a provisional list for allotment of 49 shops vide order dated 19.4.18, which includes inter alia the names of the applicants herein. However, notwithstanding the interim order passed by this Court as aforesaid, the respondent proceeded to publish a provisional list for allotment of 49 shops vide order dated 19.4.18, which includes inter alia the names of the applicants herein. However, in the order issued, it was specifically mentioned that the allotment of the shops as per the list shall be subject to decision of the writ petitions preferred by the 9 firms before this Court. 7. Before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioners made a categorical assertion that they are licensees for trade in vegetables and have been in dealing with vegetable for last so many years, which was not controverted by the respondent. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioners were allotted the shops in the Fruit Mandi only for the reason that their shops in the Mandi at Paota were situated amongst 165 shops in Blocks-E, H-II, J-II, K-I and L, the blocks in which fruit dealers were operating their business. 8. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the factual position noticed as above and rival submissions, allowed the writ petition with the observations and directions as under: " The stand of the respondents that the petitioners were operating in right side of the Mandi, hence, they were allotted plots in Fruit Mandi is unpalatable, if not preposterous. Such stand does not confirm to logic and hence, cannot be countenanced, particularly when the respondents have created two separate mandis for vegetables and fruits, based on the nature of trade. The Appellate Authority-the Director has therefore rightly allowed petitioners' appeals, vide his order dated 05.12.2016. The Director has already quashed the order dated 14.07.2016, and the same has attained finality. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to consider petitioners' cases as dealers dealing in vegetables and allot the plots in Bhadvasia-Vegetable Mandi. When this Court completed the dictation of this order, Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to fore petitioners' immediate concern/grievance that the Paota Vegetable Mandi is going to be de-notified soon and since the respondent No.3 has not allotted them the plots, they could not construct their shops in new Vegetable Mandi at Bhadvasia. When this Court completed the dictation of this order, Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to fore petitioners' immediate concern/grievance that the Paota Vegetable Mandi is going to be de-notified soon and since the respondent No.3 has not allotted them the plots, they could not construct their shops in new Vegetable Mandi at Bhadvasia. He submitted that allotment of plots and construction of shops at Bhadvasia will take some time and till they are allotted plots and their shops are constructed, he prayed that they may be permitted to carry on their trade at present Mandi at Paota only. Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed such prayer and submitted that permitting these persons to operate in Paota Mandi would thwart rather stifle the entire process of de-notifying the Paota Mandi and effort of the State to shift the Paota Mandi to Bhadwasia for expanding Roadways Bus Stand and to decongest Paota Circle. When the Court asked about some alternative solution, the respondent No.3, Mr. Bhagirath Prajapat, present in person, came out with a proposal that since the respondents are in process of shifting the Mandi, till the rights of the petitioners are determined; they are allotted plots and the allottees raise construction thereupon; he will permit these nine petitioners to operate in new vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia-in an open yard. Such offer was accepted by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, in presence of some of the petitioners. Hence, it is ordered that if any further enquiry is to be made, the same be completed by the Secretary as early as possible and the petitioners be allotted shops (if eligible), within a period of two months from today. In case the petitioners are allotted shops in the vegetable mandi at Bhadwasia, they shall be given reasonable time to construct their shops. Until such time, petitioners (who are allotted plots) will be permitted to operate in the open space provided by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiit. Needless to observe that petitioners shall surrender their allotment in Fruit Mandi and pay differential amount, if any, within a period of 30 days of receipt of allotment letter." 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the application of the applicants herein seeking impleadment as party respondents. Needless to observe that petitioners shall surrender their allotment in Fruit Mandi and pay differential amount, if any, within a period of 30 days of receipt of allotment letter." 9. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in dismissing the application of the applicants herein seeking impleadment as party respondents. Learned counsel submitted that since names of the applicants herein having been included in the provisional list for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi, their rights are apparently affected by the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as, if the writ petitioners are allotted the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi considering them the wholesale dealers in vegetable, their names may be excluded from the list of 49 allottees proposed to be allotted shops in Bhadwasia Mandi. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioners are not trading in vegetables at Paota Mandi and therefore, they are not entitled to be allotted shops in Bhadwasia Mandi treating them the persons engaged in wholesale business of vegetable. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petitioners have already been allotted shops in Fruit Mandi inasmuch as, they were engaged in business of fruit and therefore, if they want the change in the allotment/transfer of the shops in lieu of the shops already allotted, they have to make an appropriate application in accordance with the rules. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon Single Judge decision of this Court in M/s. Ummaid Singh Ramchandra & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B.C.Writ Petition No.11558/16, decided on 18.8.17, upheld by Bench decision of this Court dated 10.10.17 rendered in D.B.Spl. Appl. Writ No.834/17. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the inclusion of the names of the applicants herein in the provisional list of 49 allottees, a right is created in their favour and thus, no order changing the category of shop allotted to the writ petitioners can be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicants. Accordingly, it is submitted that the leave to appeal as also the special appeal deserve to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, it is submitted that the leave to appeal as also the special appeal deserve to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the first respondent and its likes were allotted the shops in Fruit Mandi under misconception that they are wholesale dealers in fruits whereas, they were licensee for wholesale business in vegetable. It is submitted that the order dated 5.12.16 passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and therefore, the respondentMandi Samiti is under an obligation to consider the cases of the first respondent and its likes for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi considering them as wholesale dealers in vegetables. Learned counsel submitted that by the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has decided 9 writ petitions preferred by the wholesale dealers in vegetables covered by order dated 5.12.16 passed by the Director, Agriculture Produce Market, however, the appellant has preferred appeal against the decision only qua the first respondent and thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge has attained finality qua the co-writ petitioners and therefore, the special appeal deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 624 . Learned counsel submitted that the provisional list published is made subject to the decision of the writ petitions pending before this Court and therefore, no right whatsoever is created in favour of the applicants on account of inclusion of their names for allotment to the shops in the provisional list. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the first respondent being existing shop holder in Savitri Bai Fulle Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Fal and Sabji) at Paota, Jodhpur, as per the policy laid down, it has preferential right of allotment and thus, before consideration of its application, the question of allotment of the shop in favour of the applicants and their likes, does not arise. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, the first respondent had applied for allotment of the shop in Bhadwasia Mandi as a shop holder in Paota Mandi as wholesale dealer in vegetable. 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Indisputably, the first respondent had applied for allotment of the shop in Bhadwasia Mandi as a shop holder in Paota Mandi as wholesale dealer in vegetable. It is not denied by the respondent before the learned Single Judge that the first respondent and its likes were allotted shops in Fruit Mandi instead of Vegetable Mandi for the reason that they were carrying on their business in the Mandi at Paota at the location in Block E, H-II, J-II, K-I and L, the blocks in which fruit dealers were operating their business. Suffice it to say that the first respondent and its likes were allotted the shops taking into consideration the location of their shops in the Mandi at Paota and not the nature of their trade; whether they were carrying on wholesale business in vegetables or fruits, which is apparently against the norms laid down in the policy for allotment of shops. 13. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved by the decision of Mandi Samiti in not allotting the shops to the first respondent and its likes, they preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. the Director, Agriculture Produce Market invoking provisions of Section 39 of the Act of 1961. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.12.16 and the Mandi Samiti was directed to consider the applications of the first respondent and its likes for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi as per the nature of business carried on by them at Paota Mandi, while taking into consideration the policies, instructions and the resolutions adopted by Mandi Samiti from time to time. It is not the case of the applicants herein that the decision of Appellate Authority was challenged by them or anybody else by availing appropriate remedy and thus, the same has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the Mandi Samiti is under an obligation to consider the applications of the writ petitioners in terms of the directions issued by the Appellate Authority for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi afresh. 14. In this view of the matter, the Mandi Samiti is under an obligation to consider the applications of the writ petitioners in terms of the directions issued by the Appellate Authority for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi afresh. 14. The contention sought to be raised by the applicants that once the shops are allotted to the first respondent and its likes in Fruit Mandi, if they are desirous of transfer/change of the shop, they have to prefer an independent application under the rules, is absolutely devoid of any merit. It is not a case where the applicants are seeking transfer of the shop rather, it is the case where their challenge to the allotment made in their favour in Fruit Mandi instead of Vegetable Mandi, succeeded before the Appellate Authority and the matter stands remanded to Mandi Samiti for consideration afresh and therefore, the Mandi Samiti is required to consider their original claim for allotment of the shops in Bhadwasia Mandi treating them the wholesale dealer in vegetable carrying on business in the shops allotted at Paota Mandi. In this view of the matter, the decision of this Court in M/s. Ummaid Singh Ramchandra's case (supra) relied upon by the applicants, is of no help to them. 15. Coming to the provisional list issued, it is pertinent to note that the interim order passed by the Court directing respondents to keep one shop vacant for each of the writ petitioners including the first respondent, was operative and therefore, the Mandi Samiti could not have proceeded with the allotment process for 9 shops out of 49 shops. Be that as it may, the provisional list issued which includes the names of the applicants herein, was specifically made subject to the decision of the writ petitions preferred by the first respondent and its likes and therefore, no right whatsoever is created in favour of the applicants to claim the allotment on the strength of the said provisional list in preference to the writ petitioners. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that a clear stipulation in the order issuing provisional list that the same shall be subject to the group of petitions pending before the Court hardly creates any right in favour of the persons whose names were included in the list. 16. Thus, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in holding that a clear stipulation in the order issuing provisional list that the same shall be subject to the group of petitions pending before the Court hardly creates any right in favour of the persons whose names were included in the list. 16. It is pertinent to note that by the order impugned, the learned Single Judge has decided 9 writ petitions preferred by 9 different firms engaged in wholesale business in vegetables covered by order dated 5.12.16 passed by the Director, Agriculture Produce Market, however, the appellant has chosen to file appeal challenging the decision only qua the first respondent and thus, the decision of the learned Single Judge having attained finality qua other writ petitioners, the question of the respondent-Mandi Samiti dealing the first respondent differently, does not arise. Further, the applicants having acquiesced with the decision of the learned Single Judge qua other writ petitioners, the principle of res judicata would be applicable to the judgment which is common. In this regard, the principles underlying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple's case (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the first respondent are fully applicable to the present case. 17. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us in exercise of intra court appeal jurisdiction. 18. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal as also the special appeal are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.