JUDGMENT : 1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the resolution/minutes of meeting dated 29.08.2024 and the communication dated 03.09.2024, whereunder the request of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plot in the newly established industrial area at Punayata, Distt. Pali was rejected. 2) The case of the petitioners is that their father, Chhipa Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim, had established a textile unit in the name and style of M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gaffur Ibrahim on Plot No. A/67, Sumerpur Road, Pali. This textile unit had been continued to run until it was closed as per directions of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 759/2002 (Mahaveer Nagar Vikas Samiti, Pali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 09.03.2004. In that judgment, the Court directed RIICO to establish a new industrial area at a suitable location, exclusively for textile processing units, away from residential areas. Additionally, industries located within residential areas were ordered to be shifted to the newly established industrial area. In pursuance of such directions, the first respondent established a new industrial area in Punayata, Distt. Pali. The RIICO conducted surveys of existing units by first and second surveys. The District Industries Center also conducted a third survey. The petitioners' name was found in the third survey report at serial No. 16. 3) The petitioners initially submitted an application for the allotment of an industrial plot in the newly established industrial area on the ground that the petitioners’ unit, which was operating in the residential area at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpura, had been closed and such a unit should be shifted to the newly established industrial area upon the allotment of an industrial plot. The said application was rejected through a communication dated 22.12.2009, on the grounds that the third survey report was not issued on the directions of the proper authorities but it was prepared by the District Industries Center, Pali. The rejection order was challenged before this Court by various individuals, including the petitioners, whose applications were rejected only on the ground that the third survey report cannot be basis for grant of industrial plot in the newly established industrial area. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed, and a direction was issued to RIICO to consider the fresh applications to be filed by the petitioners therein, on the basis of third survey report. Ultimately, the writ petitions were allowed, and a direction was issued to RIICO to consider the fresh applications to be filed by the petitioners therein, on the basis of third survey report. 4) The petitioners submitted a fresh application dated 06.06.2024, along with the required documents, claiming the allotment of an industrial plot. Along with the said application, the petitioners had submitted the electricity bills and the notices issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 13.05.2004 and 27.09.2004, under which a direction was given to the petitioners’ unit to close down and comply with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court. 5) The Allotment Committee, by its resolution dated 29.08.2024 and through communication dated 03.09.2024, rejected the petitioners' application on two grounds. The first ground was that the name of the applicant did not match the name reflected in the third survey report, and the second ground was that the communications produced by the petitioners, which were claimed to have been issued by the Pollution Control Board, appeared to be of a suspicious nature. On these two grounds, the request for the allotment of the industrial plot was rejected. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 6) The case of the respondents is that the petitioners' name, as reflected in various applications and other communications, do not match with the name of the industrial unit identified in the third survey report. The petitioners are not clear regarding the name of the unit, as they have been mentioning it either as 'Gafoor Ibrahim' or 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim.' Furthermore, in the civil suit, the name of the plaintiff was mentioned as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim, represented by proprietor Jamaluddin S/o Ibrahim.' According to the respondents, the petitioner is uncertain whether M/s. Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim is a proprietary concern or a firm. This was appropriately considered by the Allotment Committee, which rightly concluded that the names reflected in the application and other communications did not match with the name of the unit as reflected in the survey report. This finding does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness that would warrant interference by this Court. 7) The case of the respondents is that the alleged notices issued by the Pollution Control Board, upon verification, were found to have a single dispatch number. This finding does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness that would warrant interference by this Court. 7) The case of the respondents is that the alleged notices issued by the Pollution Control Board, upon verification, were found to have a single dispatch number. Since multiple notices were issued under a single dispatch number, it appears that these notices were managed and thus, they are suspicious documents. As such, they could not be foundation to claim the allotment. This was also rightly considered by the Allotment Committee while rejecting the application. Therefore, interference by this Court is unwarranted. 8) I have heard the arguments of both the counsels and carefully perused the material available on record. 9) The facts disclosed are that in the initial application filed by the petitioners, the name of the applicant is given as 'Gafoor Ji Ibrahim Ji.' The electricity bills produced by the petitioner reflect the name of the consumer as 'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.' The cause title of the previous writ petition shows the name of the petitioner as 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim.' The fresh application dated 06.06.2024 contains the name of the petitioner as 'Cheepa Gafoor Ibrahim.' However, the third Survey List at serial No. 16 shows the name of the industrial unit as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.' In the previous round of rejection, the rejection was not based on the fact that the names 'Gafoor Ji Ibrahim Ji,' 'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,' or 'Chhipa Gafoor Ibrahim' were not the names of the textile unit, which was found in the third survey report as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim.' It appears that the partners/proprietors of M/s Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim are family members of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim, i.e., they are the sons and daughter-in-law of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. No doubt, while giving the nomenclature in the first application, as well as the second application and the previous writ petition, different descriptions have been used, either omitting 'Chhipa' or 'Abdul.' However, it is not the finding of the Allotment Committee that the applicants, who made an application seeking the allotment of the industrial plot, are strangers to M/s Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. The pleadings and material on record clearly establish that the applicants are the sons and daughters- in-law of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim who was running the textile unit at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpur, Pali. The pleadings and material on record clearly establish that the applicants are the sons and daughters- in-law of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim who was running the textile unit at Plot No. A/67, Sumerpur, Pali. While referring to the nomenclature of the applicants, the authority should have considered the educational background of the applicants. All the applicants appear to be illiterate, as evidenced by the application submitted by them, on which only their thumb impressions were made. These applicants are none other than the sons of Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. A mere omission of 'Chhipa' or/and 'Abdul' while giving the name of the applicant should not be taken to mean that they are strangers and unconnected with M/s Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim. 10) It appears that the petitioners also produced electricity bills in which the name of the consumer was given as 'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim' and in these bills, 'Chhipa' is omitted. However, the certificate issued by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam shows that the consumer's name, as reflected in the application for obtaining the connection, was clearly mentioned as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim'. The certificate issued by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam seems to have not been placed before the authorities, and the order also does not reflect consideration of such a certificate except the anomalies found in various cause titles of the application, suit, and writ petition and such anomalies were influential factors in holding that the names of the applicants did not match the name of the applicants as reflected in the third survey list. 11) There is no mention in the rejection order as to whether other documents proving title, such as the allotment letter, patta, or jamabandi (land records), were considered, particularly if the industry is located on agricultural land. In case, the unit is not running on patta or allotment letter, or any khatedari land, a tenant is also entitled to an allotment, provided proof of the existence of a rent agreement and an affidavit from the landowner stating that they will not claim any allotment based on the existence of the unit on their land. It is not clear from the writ petition whether such a document was submitted to the Allotment Authority or not. It is not clear from the writ petition whether such a document was submitted to the Allotment Authority or not. In light of the additional material produced before this Court, particularly the letter issued by the Vidyut Vitaran Nigam, wherein the consumer's name is clearly mentioned as 'Chhipa Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,' which is clarificatory in nature to the electricity bills that were part of the application for allotment of land submitted by the petitioners, wherein the name of the consumer is mentioned as 'Abdul Gafoor Ibrahim,' omitting the name/caste 'Chhipa. 12) In the said background of the facts, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order of rejection and remand the matter back to the respondents-authority to consider afresh the application of the petitioners for allotment of industrial plot by re-appreciating the anomalies found in the name of the applicants. The petitioners are directed to produce any other additional material before the Allotment Authority in proof of existence of unit as required in the advertisement inviting applications for allotment of industrial plot i.e. title proof, electricity bill. If it is run on tenanted land, rent agreement and affidavit of landlord shall be produced. If the Allotting Authorities are satisfied that Chhipa Abdul Gafoor was running the unit as on the date of the direction to close the units as ordered by the Division Bench of this Court, the request of the petitioners for allotment shall be considered. 13) With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. The said exercise shall be done within 3 months from the date of filing additional documents by the petitioners. The petitioners are given liberty to submit additional material before the Allotting Authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 14) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.