JUDGMENT : 1. This intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-writ petitioner for assailing the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by learned Single Bench whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to decide the matter pertaining to allotment of godown was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti “A” Category, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mandi Samiti’) issued an advertisement dated 13.01.2006 for allotment of a godown having capacity of 1000 metric ton on in- situ basis (in the original position). In the advertisement dated 13.01.2006, it was further stated that allotment of godown shall be made as per the rates fixed in accordance with the Allotment Policy, 2005 for allotment of godowns, decided by the Government of Rajasthan. The appellant-writ petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement submitted an application dated 14.01.2006 seeking allotment of godown and deposited security amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with the respondents. Since, the husband of the appellant-writ petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk with the Mandi Samiti, the Secretary, Mandi Samiti vide letter dated 20.03.2006 sought guidelines from Director, Agricultural Marketing as to whether allotment in favour of the appellant could be made. The Additional Director, Agricultural Marketing vide communication dated 13.06.2006 sought explanation from Secretary, Mandi as to with whose permission, advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued for allotment of godown and security amount accepted thereto, particularly when the reserve rates for the same had not been finalised after coming into force of Allotment Policy, 2005. The Secretary, Mandi Samiti thereupon vide letter dated 04.10.2006 clarified that permission for allotment of godown on in situ basis had been granted by the Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, vide letter dated 26.08.2006. Further inter alia, it was stated that security amount for the godown was fixed by the Mandi Samiti on its own, as per the provisions of General Finance and Account Rules and the reserve price for allotment was to be finalised after receiving guidelines from the Directorate, Agricultural Marketing. It is evident from the record that allotment proceedings pursuant to advertisement dated 13.01.2006 could not be completed and therefore, Mandi Samiti through registered post dated 28.07.2008 returned a cheque dated 28.07.2008, bearing No. 821252 of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant-writ petitioner, deposited against security amount by her. It is evident from the record that allotment proceedings pursuant to advertisement dated 13.01.2006 could not be completed and therefore, Mandi Samiti through registered post dated 28.07.2008 returned a cheque dated 28.07.2008, bearing No. 821252 of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant-writ petitioner, deposited against security amount by her. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, no such cheque was received by her and since she was interested in completion of the godown allotment process, a legal notice dated 08.07.2008 was served upon Mandi Samiti requesting them to expedite the process of allotment. However, the efforts made by the appellant to accelerate the allotment process were in vain. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in completing the godown allotment process initiated through advertisement dated 13.01.2006, appellant-writ petitioner preferred a writ petition before learned Single Bench with the following prayers: “1. Writ petition may kindly be allowed and proper order/writ/direction/mandamus may kindly be issued. 2. Respondent may kindly be directed to decide the matter for the allotment of the Godown. 3. During the pendency of this petition respondents may kindly be directed to not allot the Godown to other person.” 3. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 24.02.2022 dismissed the writ petition holding that in the policy decision, the respondents cannot be bound down to complete the allotment process of godown unless the same suffers from arbitrariness or discrimination. It was observed that the allotment process had not culminated into finality even after a lapse of 10 years and thus no case for interference was made out. The appellant-writ petitioner has laid a challenge to the order dated 24.02.2022 in the present intra court appeal. 4. At this stage, it would be apposite to mention that during the pendency of the writ petition before learned Single Bench, the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara on 17.02.2022 issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications for the allotment of godown in question as per the Allotment Policy, 2005. The appellant-writ petitioner for the reasons best known to her, neither brought this fact regarding issuance of advertisement dated 17.02.2022 to the notice of learned Single Bench nor challenged the same independently. However, the same has been placed in the instant special appeal through an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking additional document on record at appellate stage. 5. However, the same has been placed in the instant special appeal through an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking additional document on record at appellate stage. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that advertisement dated 13.01.2006 inviting applications for allotment of godown was issued by the respondents as per the Allotment Policy, 2005. The appellant-writ petitioner being eligible and desirous of getting the godown allotted, submitted an application dated 14.01.2006 along with security amount to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 with the Mandi Samiti. It was submitted that without any valid justification, the application was kept pending which compelled the appellant-writ petitioner to seek issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus seeking direction upon the respondents to complete the allotment process. Learned counsel submitted that on one hand, allotment process for godown pursuant to advertisement dated 13.01.2006 had not completed while on the other hand, the earnest money deposited by the appellant had been retained by the respondents depriving her from making use of her hard earned money. Learned counsel further submitted that an authority discharging public functions is expected to act as per the statutes and guidelines within a reasonable period however, in the present case, respondent-authorities had not issued allotment letter in favour of the appellant despite her fulfilling all the conditions enumerated in the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 and Allotment Policy, 2005. Lastly, it was submitted that despite repeated representations submitted by the appellant, no action whatsoever was been taken by the respondents to decide the pending application dated 14.01.2006 for allotment of godown. On the contrary, by an advertisement dated 17.02.2022 fresh process for allotment of godown has been initiated. Learned counsel drew Court’s attention towards the budget speech dated 23.02.2022 delivered by Hon’ble the Chief Minister of Rajasthan proposing that all pending applications for land allotment in various Mandi premises in the State of Rajasthan shall be allotted on reserve prices. It was thus prayed that the order dated 24.02.2022 may be reversed and the respondents may be directed to decide application dated 14.01.2006 expeditiously in a non-discriminatory manner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that Mandi Samitis have been established under the provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Produce Act, 1961. It was thus prayed that the order dated 24.02.2022 may be reversed and the respondents may be directed to decide application dated 14.01.2006 expeditiously in a non-discriminatory manner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that Mandi Samitis have been established under the provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Marketing Produce Act, 1961. It was urged that the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 for allotment of godown at Mandi Samiti was issued by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, without sanction of the State Government, as required by provisions of the Act of 1961 and therefore, whole process so initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement was void ab initio. Learned counsel further submitted that from the perusal of communications dated 13.06.2006 and 04.10.2006, it is clear that the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued prior to finalization of reserve price for allotment of godowns by the State Government. The appellant was informed vide letter dated 31.01.2007, issued by Secretary, Mandi Samiti that final decision regarding allotment in question will be taken under the directives of the State Government and therefore, the appellant may either wait for final decision to be taken by the State Government or she may withdraw the security money deposited by her against the said allotment. Learned counsel submitted that the process initiated by the Mandi Samiti for allotment of godown was not approved by the State Government as a result whereof, a cheque No. 821252 dated 28.07.2008 of Rs. 1,00,000 deposited against security money was sent to the appellant, which was returned undelivered. It was emphatically submitted that the husband of the appellant Shri Bal Mukund Joshi is an employee of the Mandi Samiti and therefore, it is difficult to believe that the factum regarding return of security amount was not known to the appellant. The intention of the applicant apparently was to keep the application dated 14.01.2006 pending. Learned counsel argued that mere submission of an application for allotment of godown does not confer any right especially when the questioned allotment process had been initiated in contravention of provisions of law. Lastly, it was submitted that the factum regarding issue of fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 for allotment of godown by the Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara was deliberately concealed by the appellant at the time when the matter was being finally heard by the learned Single Bench. It was thus prayed that the instant appeal may be dismissed. 7. Lastly, it was submitted that the factum regarding issue of fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 for allotment of godown by the Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara was deliberately concealed by the appellant at the time when the matter was being finally heard by the learned Single Bench. It was thus prayed that the instant appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard submissions advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Section 21-A of the Act of 1961 is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference: “21-A Disposal of movable or immovable property- The market committee may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, sell, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise transfer movable or immovable property vested in the market committee.” 9. The Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 empowers the State Government to classify market areas into Super class, A class, B class, C class and D class market areas, on the basis of the criteria, as may be prescribed from time to time and establish a market committee for every such market area. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara has been classified as A Class market area. The market committee established for Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara as per Section 21-A has been vested with the powers to sell, gift, mortage, lease or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property, with the previous sanction of State Government. 10. Admittedly, the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was issued by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara without approval and previous sanction of the State Government. Thus, there was a complete lack of jurisdiction on the part of Secretary, Mandi Samiti in issuing the advertisement dated 13.01.2006. A bare reading of the communication dated 13.06.2006 of the Additional Director, Agricultural Marketing makes it evident that State Government had objected to the issuance of the advertisement dated 13.01.2006 without permission of the State Government. In fact, objection was also raised on the count that without determination of reserve price for allotment of land/godown in the market area, the security amount had been accepted by the Mandi Samiti. We have no doubt in our mind that in the cases where authority lacks jurisdiction under a statute and yet exercises powers without sanction of law, any order so passed through such illegal exercise of power is a legal nullity. 11. We have no doubt in our mind that in the cases where authority lacks jurisdiction under a statute and yet exercises powers without sanction of law, any order so passed through such illegal exercise of power is a legal nullity. 11. We do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the application dated 14.01.2006 submitted by her for allotment of godown could not have been left dormant, particularly when she fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and had deposited security amount of Rs. 1,00,000. E converso, the record of the case reveals that not only a cheque bearing No. 821252 dated 28.07.2008 to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 was returned to the appellant through registered AD but it was also brought to the knowledge of the appellant vide reply dated 07.08.2008 to the legal notice dated 08.07.2008, served by the appellant. This is indicative of the fact that the appellant did not want the allotment process to culminate into finality though, the process initiated under advertisement dated 13.01.2006 was put to an end by the respondents. 12. As noticed hereinabove, the husband of the appellant-writ petitioner Shri Balmukund Joshi was working on the post of LDC in the respondent Mandi Samiti, therefore, the ignorance feigned by the petitioner of the various developments which were taking place in the matter pertaining to allotment of questioned godown in the Mandi Samiti is absolutely unbelievable. 13. Even otherwise, mere submission of application for allotment of godown does not confer any right upon the applicant to seek allotment. The allotment of godown in question has to be made as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the policy framed in this regard by the State Government which cannot be interferred with unless the same suffers from vice of mala-fide and arbitrariness. 14. At this stage, we are constrained to observe that the appellant has abused the process of law by not bringing it to the knowledge of learned Single Bench at the time of final hearing of the matter that a fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 inviting applications for allotment of godown in question had been issued by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara. At this stage, we are constrained to observe that the appellant has abused the process of law by not bringing it to the knowledge of learned Single Bench at the time of final hearing of the matter that a fresh advertisement dated 17.02.2022 inviting applications for allotment of godown in question had been issued by the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, Bhilwara. Since, a fresh advertisement had already been issued, it was a solemn obligation of the appellant to candidly and correctly bring this material/important fact having bearing on the adjudication of the issue to the knowledge of learned Single Bench. 15. In view of aforesaid, the impugned judgment does not warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs.