ORDER: T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus (1) declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting shop No.17, situated at wholesale market of Bowenpalli, as illegal and arbitrary; (2) declaring the action of the respondents in allotting shops in favour of all the 10 traders out of 11 traders except the petitioner though the petitioner is similarly situated and was doing business while shifting market from Hissamgunj, Monda Market to Bowenpalli Market in 1995 as discriminatory; and consequently (3) to direct the respondents to allot and sell shop No.17, situated at Bowenpalli Market in favour of the petitioner at the cost as fixed in favour of other traders in the year 1995 and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a partnership firm which obtained marketing license under Section 7(1) of the Market Act from the erstwhile Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, in the year 1993 when the market was situated at Hissamgunj, Monda Market and the said license was renewed from time to time and was valid upto 31.03.2018. It is stated that in the year 1995, there was a proposal to shift the wholesale transactions in vegetables and grains from (Hissamgunj) Monda Market, Secunderabad, to Bowenpally by constructing shops for the commission agents and accordingly, the wholesale market was established at Bowenpally. The market authorities conducted a survey to assess the demand for such shops amongst the licensed commission agents/traders operating the business in Monda Market and the traders were asked to submit their applications with a security deposit of Rs.5,000/- through crossed Demand Draft drawn in favour of the erstwhile Agricultural Market Committee, Hyderabad, on or before 15.12.1995. The petitioner claims to have submitted the application along with Demand Draft along with several other traders for allotment of shop at Bowenpally market yard, to carry on his business. It is stated that the market committee has received 65 applications, out of which 26 applications were only found as valid and from person who possessed licenses and were carrying on business within the Monda market and 4 applications were of retailers and 11 applications were from persons who operate outside Monda market. It is stated that the market committee has received 65 applications, out of which 26 applications were only found as valid and from person who possessed licenses and were carrying on business within the Monda market and 4 applications were of retailers and 11 applications were from persons who operate outside Monda market. The authorities, therefore, decided not to provide any accommodation at Bowenpally, Secunderabad, to retailers and persons having no licenses but placed the request of the 11 traders who are working outside the Monda market before the Director of Marketing for consideration vide Minutes of the Meeting of the market committee held on 06.02.1996. However, the same was rejected on 07.12.1998 and according to the petitioner, no reasons were given for the same. The petitioner is one amongst such 11 traders. It is submitted that the petitioner and other 10 traders filed W.P.No.9259 of 1999 before this Court challenging the orders dated 07.12.1998 and initially, there was an interim direction to the Agricultural Market Committee (AMC), Hyderabad, not to allot 11 mullgies to others pending disposal of the writ petition and finally was dismissed as withdrawn the writ petition on 14.12.1999 since the AMC, Hyderabad, assured accommodation subject to withdrawal of the writ petition. 3. It is submitted that thereafter, the association made a representation on 28.12.1999 to allot shops for the 11 traders and the market committee informed the association that their request would be considered since the writ petition was withdrawn. However, the request of the petitioner in spite of representations dated 22.06.2002, 21.12.2002 and 17.12.2003 were not considered. It is submitted that 7 out of 11 traders, other than the petitioner filed W.P.No.6302 of 2003 on the file of this Court, which was disposed of at the admission stage directing the representation of the petitioners therein dated 21.12.2002 to be considered and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months vide orders dated 17.04.2003 and pursuant to the said orders, fresh representations were made but the Director of Marketing refused the request on the ground that the 11 traders are not operating the business within the Monda Market. In the meantime, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 05.02.2005 was issued introducing a cyclic rotation for allotment of remaining existing shops amongst the members of the association, vegetable traders and Bharatnagar commission agents. In the meantime, G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 05.02.2005 was issued introducing a cyclic rotation for allotment of remaining existing shops amongst the members of the association, vegetable traders and Bharatnagar commission agents. This order was also again challenged in W.P.No.3988/2005 and W.P.No.2324/2005, which were disposed of directing the petitioners to approach market authorities for allotment of shops or vacant site, stated to be available for construction by the members of the association. However, the said directions were not complied with. In view thereof, 2 traders namely M/s.J.Krishna Murthy & Son and M/s.Rajaram Shrigopal, approached this Court in W.P.No.7363 of 2004 to consider their cases for allotment of existing shops and to sell the same for consideration as prayed by the other allottees when they were allotted in the year 1995. This Court found that the shops were admittedly constructed in 1999-2000 and therefore, the cost of construction at the relevant point of time was taken into consideration to fix the value of shops and it was held that there was no justification in asking for a price higher than the price fixed in 1999-2000 i.e., Rs.19,17,900/-. Thus, orders dated 01.08.2014 were passed and the petitioners therein were accordingly allotted shop No.A19. Since, the shop Nos.17 and 18 were still vacant, the petitioner approached for allotment the same as was done in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.7363 of 2004 for the same consideration of Rs.19,17,900/-. Accordingly, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and submitted that the petitioner is similarly placed as the petitioners in W.P.No.7363 of 2004 and that the petitioner also is willing to make the payment for the construction of a shop as was done in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.7363 of 2004 and therefore, he should be allotted one of the shops i.e., either shop No.17 or 18. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation appearing for the respondent No.3 has relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit stating that there was a proposal for dismantling of Monda Market for road widening to avoid traffic congestion in Secundrabad area and therefore, the new market yard was established at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation appearing for the respondent No.3 has relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit stating that there was a proposal for dismantling of Monda Market for road widening to avoid traffic congestion in Secundrabad area and therefore, the new market yard was established at Bowenpally, Secunderabad. It is stated that total of 169 applications were received, out of which, 90 were for vegetable commission agents and 26 were for grain traders and that the respondent No.3 had rejected the 4 applications of the retailers and 11 applications of the traders who were doing business outside the Monda Market and also the applications of those who did not have licenses and that the petitioner was one of such traders. It is admitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.6302 of 2003, seven shops in the newly constructed market area, Bowenpally, were kept vacant. It is stated that the petitioners in W.P.No.6302 of 2003 made a representation and after careful examination of the matter, G.O.Ms.No.18, Agril&Coop(Mktg)-II Department, dated 05.02.2005 was issued for allotment of vacant shops at market yard, Bowenpally. It is submitted that 11 traders including the petitioner filed W.P.No.3938 of 2005 challenging the G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 05.02.2005 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 08.04.2005 with directions to the petitioners therein to approach the respondents for allotment of vacant site on cost basis subject to construction of shops at their own cost and therefore, the erstwhile Agriculture Market Committee, Hyderabad, initiated action for allotment of shops as per revised market value of land and construction of shops. It is stated that 2 of the traders filed W.P.No.7363 of 2004 challenging the allotment of vacant shops as per the revised market rates before the High Court and an interim order dated 27.04.2004 was passed directing to keep two shops vacant pending adjudication of the writ petition. It is stated that 2 of the traders filed W.P.No.7363 of 2004 challenging the allotment of vacant shops as per the revised market rates before the High Court and an interim order dated 27.04.2004 was passed directing to keep two shops vacant pending adjudication of the writ petition. It is stated that first petitioner in W.P.No.7363 of 2004 requested the respondent No.3 for allotment of one out of two vacant shops as per revised market value and accordingly, the shop No.10 at the cost of Rs.27,16,000/- was allotted, but the High Court passed orders dated 01.08.2014 directing the respondent No.3 to allot the shop to the petitioner at old rates and against the said orders, a Writ Appeal i.e., W.A.No.1072 of 2015 was filed which was disposed of on 05.07.2016 ordering the Agricultural Market Committee to work out total amount payable including simple interest @ 4% per annum on Rs.27,16,000/- from the date of payment of the amount by M/s.Jeksani Krishan Murthy & son. It is stated that the petitioner No.2 therein was directed to pay the amount determined by the market committee within three months and accordingly, the petitioner No.2 has paid an amount of Rs.36,32,199/- and he has been allotted a shop. It is stated that when the commission agents who are not having shops requested the respondent No.3 for allotment of either space or shop for doing business, a proposal was sent to the respondent No.2 for construction of 40 temporary sheds in the market yard duly dividing 4 shops having Nos.B26, A17, A18 and A25 into two shops each and for construction of 32 temporary sheds in the vacant land and that the respondent No.2 accorded permission for construction of 40 temporary sheds in the market yard vide proceeding dated 02.01.2016 and therefore, it is not possible for allotment of any vacant shop or shop No.17 which are now meant for division into two shops each. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the averments in the reply affidavit denying that the respondent No.3 has submitted proposals for construction of 40 temporary shops within the market including the division of 4 shops into two each and he submitted that these recommendations have not materialized for the last nine years and further that the division of shop No.17 into two shops is not feasible and further that the respondent No.2 is not competent to do so. He therefore, prayed that the petitioner be allotted shop No.17 on payment of Rs.27,16,000/- along with interest simple interest @ 4% as directed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1072 of 2015. 7. When the matter came up for hearing in the year 2025, this Court had required the learned standing counsel to get information as to whether shop No.17 was still vacant and it was informed that shop No.17 is still vacant. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has made application for allotment of shops at the inception itself and his case was not considered solely on the ground that he was not operating within the limits of Monda Market. However, he was also one of the litigants before this Court, who filed a writ petition for allotment of shops and he is similarly placed as the writ petitioners in W.P.No.6302 of 2003. Therefore, he is entitled to be treated on par with the similarly placed persons. The issue had gone upto the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1072 of 2015 and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 05.07.2016 had directed the respondents therein to allot the shops to the petitioners therein for a sum of Rs.27,16,000/- with simple interest @ 4% per annum thereon and accordingly, the respondents have also allotted the shops. The petitioner being similarly placed person is also entitled for similar relief. The respondents are therefore, directed to allot a shop to the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.27,16,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date on which the shops were initially allotted at such rates to other similarly placed persons till the date of payment. The petitioner being similarly placed person is also entitled for similar relief. The respondents are therefore, directed to allot a shop to the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.27,16,000/- with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date on which the shops were initially allotted at such rates to other similarly placed persons till the date of payment. The respondents shall therefore, take a decision in this regard and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.