JUDGMENT : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present special appeals being arising out of a common judgment have been heard and are decided jointly by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that for better administration of buying and selling of agricultural produce and establishment of market for agricultural produce in the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Agricultural Market Produce Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1961") was enacted. For the purpose of effective implementation of the provisions of the Act of 1961, the Rajasthan Agricultural Market Produce Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1963") were framed. The Act of 1961 provides for constitution of Market Samiti and the power of the said Samiti to collect market fee as well as market committee fund. The said fund is utilized for the purposes such as acquisition of sites for the market, maintenance and improvement of market etc. The Act also provides for the power of the Market Committee regarding disposal of movable and immovable property. 3. At the inception, the shops in the Mandi yard were allotted through auction as no separate guidelines/by-laws were provided for the same. The said process was given challenge to in various writ petitions filed before this Court. In the case of M/s. Ved Prakash Ramesh Chandra & Company v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.401/1996, decided on 06.03.2002) the Division Bench of this Court directed the State Government to constitute a Committee to formulate a policy for allotment of the shops. The operative portion of the judgment as passed in Ved Prakash's case (supra) is as under: "Therefore, in the larger interest of public, this Court feels that the State Government be directed to constitute a committee to formulate a policy for allotment of shops. It will be better that the Committee consults the Mandi Samitis as well as representatives of the traders and lays down guidelines for making available the shops to the traders so that the object of the Act of 1961 may be fulfilled without causing hardship to the traders and loss to the Mandi Samiti. The Committee should be constituted within one month and it should take a decision within a period of three months thereafter." 4. The Committee should be constituted within one month and it should take a decision within a period of three months thereafter." 4. In pursuance of the above mentioned directions, the State Government constituted a Committee and formulated a detailed policy for allotment of the immovable property which came into effect from 25.04.2005. The policy of 2005 provides for the criteria, procedure, reservation as well as the price/cost of the allotment to be made in the market yard. Clause 11 of the Policy provided that those shopkeepers who already had the shops in the Mandi Yard on rent basis would now be given preference for conversion of the said shop from rent basis to lease basis. Clause 11 ¼[k½ of the Policy provided for an option to be given to such shopkeepers to get their allotment converted to a lease for 49 years on such percentage of DLC Rates as may be decided by the Government. In terms of the said Clause, the options were invited from the shopkeepers. 5. An amendment was introduced in Clause 11 ¼[k½ of the Policy of 2005 and it was provided that the allotment would be made @ 25% of DLC rates as applicable on 01.04.2007. Vide the amendment, the lease period was also extended from 49 to 99 years. Vide communication dated 30.04.2008, the options were invited by the Committee to be submitted by 12.05.2008 and along with the said communication, the calculation of the amount to be paid for the purpose was also annexed. According to the calculation, 25% of the DLC rate (Rs. 9792/- per sq. mtr.) amounted to Rs. 2448/- per sq. mtr. It is relevant to note here that on 01.04.2008, no separate DLC rate was fixed for the Mandi Yard, therefore, the DLC rate of the nearest commercial area as prevailing on 01.04.2007 was taken into account in terms of Clause 2(7) of the Policy. 6. Vide letter dated 31.10.2008, the State Government directed the Collectors of all the districts to fix the DLC rates for the Mandi Yard. In pursuance thereof, the DLC rate for the Mandi Yard, Sri Ganganagar was fixed as Rs. 4000/- per sq. mtr. for shops and Rs. 2000/- per sq. mtr. for godown/peed. On the said fixation being enacted, a representation was filed on behalf of the shopkeepers that as now in the year 2009 the DLC rates have been fixed as Rs. In pursuance thereof, the DLC rate for the Mandi Yard, Sri Ganganagar was fixed as Rs. 4000/- per sq. mtr. for shops and Rs. 2000/- per sq. mtr. for godown/peed. On the said fixation being enacted, a representation was filed on behalf of the shopkeepers that as now in the year 2009 the DLC rates have been fixed as Rs. 4000/-, the rate calculated in the year 2007, that is, Rs. 9792/- per sq. mtr. was exorbitant and therefore, the same may also be modified. 7. Meanwhile, the second round of the allotment of the shops was taken up by the Samiti and the DLC rates applicable for the allottees was fixed to be at Rs. 9792/- per sq. mtr. Vide letter dated 09.12.2010 of the Samiti, last opportunity was granted for submitting the options for conversion on or before 31.12.2010. 8. Before the last date, that is, 31.12.2010, the petitioner submitted its option for conversion with the specific averment that the decision as passed by the Court in the writ petition filed by the Sri Ganganagar Trader's Association would be agreeable to the firm. 9. Vide communication dated 17/18/23.02.2011, the petitioner firm was informed that its option has been accepted and it was directed to deposit the required amount. On 30/31.03.2011, the first installment of the amount payable was deposited by the firm and the second installment was deposited later on after taking leave from the Court. 10. Meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the Trader's Association as well as of various traders was decided by the Single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2011, whereby, the matter was remanded back to the respondent authorities for determination of the DLC rates for the shops for which lease had been granted w.e.f. 01.04.2007. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the learned Division Bench and further the SLP against the same, filed by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, was also dismissed. While disposing of the special appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.04.2012, directed that the determination of the DLC as on 01.04.2007 be made by the District Level Committee. While disposing of the special appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.04.2012, directed that the determination of the DLC as on 01.04.2007 be made by the District Level Committee. The operative portion of the judgment dated 20.04.12 read as under: "As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, let determination of rate as on 1.4.2007 be made by the District Level Committee and a decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment. The District Level Committee has to duly consider the rates determined by it with effect from 1.4.2008 and the subsequent determination of the rates for Market Yard as also the Govt. circular dated 31.10.2008. The District Level Committee has to consider the aforesaid aspect as specified in the Circular dt. 31.10.2008 issued by the Agriculture Department of State of Rajasthan." 11. In pursuance to the directions of the Division Bench, the DLC rates for the year 2007 were considered by the District Level Committee and was fixed at Rs. 3670/- for shops. 12. The District Level Committee has to consider the aforesaid aspect as specified in the Circular dt. 31.10.2008 issued by the Agriculture Department of State of Rajasthan." 11. In pursuance to the directions of the Division Bench, the DLC rates for the year 2007 were considered by the District Level Committee and was fixed at Rs. 3670/- for shops. 12. But before the fixation of the said rates on 23.02.2013, an amendment to Clause 11 ¼[k½ of the Policy of 2005 was introduced on 26.09.2012 which read as under: vpy lEifr vkoaVu uhfr] 2005 ds fcUnq la[;k 11¼[k½ esa rqjUr ÁHkko ls fuEukuqlkj la’kks/ku fd;k tkrk gS %& Áko/kku la[;k fo|eku Áko/kku la'kksf/kr Áko/kku 11 ¼[k½ eaMh Ákax.kkas esa nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa ds vkoaVh vuqKk/kkfj;ksa dks 31-12-2010 rd ;g fodYi lEcfU/kr e.Mh lfefr dks ÁLrqr djuk gksxk fd os vkoafVr nqdku@xksnke vkoaVu 'kqYd ¼fdjk;k½ i)fr ij j[kuk pkgrs gS vFkok yht i)fr esa ifjofrZr djkuk pkgrs gSA vkoafVr nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa dks yht i)fr esa ifjofrZr djkus dh n'kk esa vkoaVh }kjk fnukad 01-04-2007 dks ÁHkkoh Mh-,y-lh- dh 25 Áfr'kr nj ls Hkwfe dh jkf'k ns; gksxhA blds lkFk vkoaVh }kjk nqdku@xksnke dks yht i)fr esa ifjorZu djk;s tkus ds le; d`f"k foi.ku cksMZ ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr nqdku@xksnke dk ewY; Hkh ns; gksxkA eaMh Ákax.kkas esa nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa ds vkoaVh vuqKk/kkfj;ksa dks 31-12-2010 rd ;g fodYi lEcfU/kr e.Mh lfefr dks ÁLrqr djuk gksxk fd os vkoafVr nqdku@xksnke vkoaVu 'kqYd ¼fdjk;k½ i)fr ij j[kuk pkgrs gS vFkok yht i)fr esa ifjofrZr djkuk pkgrs gSA vkoafVr nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa dks yht i)fr esa ifjofrZr djkus dh n'kk esa vkoaVh }kjk fnukad 01-04-2007 dks ÁHkkoh Mh-,y-lh- dh 25 Áfr'kr nj ls Hkwfe dh jkf'k ns; gksxhA blds lkFk vkoaVh }kjk nqdku@xksnke dks yht i)fr esa ifjorZu djk;s tkus ds le; d`f"k foi.ku cksMZ ds }kjk fu/kkZfjr nqdku@xksnke dk ewY; Hkh ns; gksxkA ftu e.Mh Ákax.kksa gsrq 01-04-2007 dh i`Fkd ls Mh-,y-lh- nj fu/kkZfjr gks x;h gS mu e.Mh Ákax.kksa esa mlh Mh-,y-lh- nj ¼100½ Áfr'kr dks gh ekfld 'kqYd ij vkoafVr nqdkuksa@xksnkeksa dk 99 o"khZ; yht esa ifjorZu gsrq vk/kkj ekuk tkosxkA yht esa ifjofrZr nqdkuksa dh Hkh vkoaVu nj dk iqu% fu/kkZj.k vxj gksrk gS rks mijksDrkuqlkj Mh-,y-lh- nj dks vk/kkj j[kuk gksxkA 13. A crux of the above amendment was that for those mandi areas where independent DLC rate has been fixed w.e.f. 14. A crux of the above amendment was that for those mandi areas where independent DLC rate has been fixed w.e.f. 14. 01.04.2007, 100% of DLC rate would be payable for grant of lease for shops which were earlier rented. It also provided that even if re-determination of lease rate is made for the shops already converted to lease, the above DLC rate would be applicable. 15. Being aggrieved against the said amendment dated 26.09.2012, the present writ petitions were filed on behalf of the traders/shopkeepers. The writ petitions of the petitioners have been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 11.07.2019 and the order dated 26.09.2012 introducing amendment in Clause 11 ¼[k½ of the Policy of 2005 to the extent it provided for charging of 100% of DLC rate has been set aside qua the petitioners and it has been directed that the original cost of 25% of DLC rate stipulated on 01.04.2007 be accepted from the petitioners. 16. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 11.07.2019, the present special appeals have been preferred by the State as well as the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. 17. In the present appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant State and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti that the impugned order dated 11.07.19 is bad for the reason that the following Preliminary Objections and the grounds raised by the appellant respondents have not been considered by the learned Single Judge:- (i) The policy under challenge is not a statutory policy and there is a leverage available to the executive to take decisions and make changes. Therefore, the Courts should refrain from interfering in a policy which is not a statutory policy. (ii) The present writ petition was delayed as the petitioners had deposited the amount in the year 2011 and filed the present petition in the year 2015 without any reasonable cause for the delay. (iii) Prior to the amendment, the rate calculated for the allotment of shops came to be Rs. 2,448/- per sq. mtr. (25% of Rs. 9,792/-) and now after the amendment being introduced, the same amount would sum up to Rs. 3,670/- per sq. mtr. The said amounts do not differ much and therefore, the amendment cannot be said to be bad. (iv) In the year 2015, the DLC rate of the nearby commercial area of the Mandi Yard was Rs.27,850/- per sq. mtr. 9,792/-) and now after the amendment being introduced, the same amount would sum up to Rs. 3,670/- per sq. mtr. The said amounts do not differ much and therefore, the amendment cannot be said to be bad. (iv) In the year 2015, the DLC rate of the nearby commercial area of the Mandi Yard was Rs.27,850/- per sq. mtr. and what the respondents claim to deposit would amount only to Rs.940/- per sq. mtr. for shops. The same cannot be held to be reasonable to any extent. (v) 35% of the income of the appellant-Market Samiti has already been deposited to the Director Agricultural Marketing Board in terms of the Rules of 1974 and therefore, the refund of the amount deposited by the traders in the year 2011 is not possible at this stage for the Samiti. (v) A huge amount has already been spent by the Samiti for the maintenance and management of the Mandi Yard and also for construction of Agro Trade Tower in new Mandi Yard at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Ganganagar (Grain) which is a project costing about Rs.1107.61/- lacs. (vi) The learned Single Judge has proceeded on the total wrong assumption that in the year 2009 the allotments were made at the rate of 25% of Rs.4000/- per sq. mtr. (the DLC rate fixed for the year 2009). No allotment at the rate of 25% of Rs.4000/- was ever made to anyone. (vii) The basic intent behind the amendment was that earlier the DLC rates were not fixed and after fixation of the same, there was no point in extending the concession of 25% which was initially granted where DLC rate of the nearby commercial area was taken into consideration. (viii) Earlier two similar amendments were introduced on 24.01.2011 and 24.03.2011 but the same are not under challenge. So far as the amendment dated 26.09.2012 is concerned, the matters of the petitioners were not finalized due to pendency of the present litigation. (ix) The District Level Committee which determined/fixed the DLC rates, is headed by the District Collector of the respective District but the District Collector and the DIGs (Stamps) have not been impleaded as parties to the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. (ix) The District Level Committee which determined/fixed the DLC rates, is headed by the District Collector of the respective District but the District Collector and the DIGs (Stamps) have not been impleaded as parties to the present writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. (x) The petitioners had an alternative remedy available to it of the civil suit to be filed after compliance of Section 21 of the Act, 1961. As the alternative remedy being available, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 18. Per contra, counsel for the respondents-petitioners submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly valid and in terms of law and deserves to be upheld. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. It is clear on record that the policy of 2005 came into effect on 25.04.2005 and on that date, the provision of Clause-11 ¼[k½ provided that the conversion of shops on lease basis would be made on such percentage of DLC rates as may be decided by the Government. In the said Clause, the amendment was introduced on 26.03.2008 and it was decided that the allotment/conversion would be made at the rate of 25% of the DLC rates as applicable on 1.04.2007. 21. The said provision existed in the policy of 2005 up to 31.12.2010 when the petitioner firm submitted its option for allotment and even till 31.03.2011, when the first installment of the amount payable was deposited by the firm. The amendment in question was introduced on 26.09.2012 which eventually had a retrospective effect as it provided that even if redetermination of lease rates is to be made for the shops already converted/allotted, the 100% DLC rate would be applicable. 22. In the opinion of this Court, such retrospective effect to the policy cannot be implemented so as to take away vested rights. 23. No policy can be given a retrospective effect so as to destroy or take away pre-existing vested rights. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Nestle India Limited and Anr. (Civil Appeal no. 23. No policy can be given a retrospective effect so as to destroy or take away pre-existing vested rights. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Nestle India Limited and Anr. (Civil Appeal no. 6449/98, decided on 05.05.2004): "Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an exparte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen". 24. The above ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is a perfect answer to the first argument of the Counsel for the appellant that there is a leverage available to the executive to take decisions and make changes. 25. It is clear on record that the petitioners' firm had submitted its option on 31.12.2010 and therefore, by any stretch of imagination, the amendment introduced on 26.09.2012 could not have been applied to it. Therefore, the amendment dated 26.09.2012 in Clause ¼[k½ of policy of 2005 so far as it provides for applicability of 100% of DLC rates cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. 26. So far as the DLC rates of year 2007 is concerned, the same was determined by the District Level Committee in pursuance to the directions of this Court which order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court too. The said decision was passed with the specific finding that the DLC rates of a Mandi Yard cannot be equated to a commercial area and therefore, separate/ independent DLC rates ought to be fixed for a Mandi Yard. The said judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.04.2012 on the premise that the discrimination between the rates payable by an allottee of the years 2007 and 2009 is bad. 27. Once a verdict of a Court has become final by all means, the same cannot be allowed to be bye-passed in the garb of an amendment. 28. 27. Once a verdict of a Court has become final by all means, the same cannot be allowed to be bye-passed in the garb of an amendment. 28. The finding given by the Division Bench in its judgment dated 20.04.2012 specifically makes it clear that there could be no discrimination between the allottees of different years and therefore, after determination of the DLC rates of the year 2007, the same cannot be made payable at an enhanced rate in the garb of an amendment. Therefore, by all means, the amendment dated 26.09.2012 can be termed to be bad so far as, it is made applicable to the present petitioners. 29. So far as the ground of delay as raised by the counsel for the appellants is concerned, it is clear on record that the association of the traders as well as some traders were litigating the cause of fixation of DLC rates for the year 2007 and the same was finalized on 03.09.2012 when the SLP of the Samiti was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In pursuance to the directions of the Court, the DLC rates for the year 2007 were finalized by the State only on 23.02.2013. Therefore, the cause of action qua the amendment dated 26.09.2012 arose to the present petitioners on 23.02.2013 only as the amendment refers only to those Mandi areas where independent DLC rates for the year 2007 have been fixed. 30. It is clear that prior to 23.02.2013, the said amendment could not have been made applicable to the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners cannot be said to be highly belated. 31. So far as the ground raised by the appellant that the amount as deposited by the traders has already been used by the Samiti in other development works is concerned, that cannot be a ground for declining a relief to the petitioners which they are otherwise entitled to. Moresoever, all the Collectors had been directed by the State Government in the Year 2008 itself for fixation of DLC rates for the mandi yard meaning thereby that the State was also conscious that the same has to be calculated on the basis of the DLC rates only. There had been the specific findings of the Court too that the DLC rates of a commercial area and a mandi yard cannot be equal. There had been the specific findings of the Court too that the DLC rates of a commercial area and a mandi yard cannot be equal. Inspite of the specific observations of the State Government and the Courts, the Samiti proceeded on with the allotment on the basis of the DLC rates of the nearest commercial area. In the circumstances, none other than the Samiti itself can be blamed for the same and therefore, cannot be held to be entitled to any relaxation by this Court. 32. In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 18.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeals filed by the State as well as the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti are therefore dismissed. 33. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.