UMA TRADING CO. Vs. STATE OF OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following prayers:

(2.) In none of the prayers there is a prayer challenging the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The petitioner at the time of arguments was requested to read that part of the petition where he has delineated to challenge the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The learned counsel candidly expressed that this writ petition pertains to seeking allotment in his favour and this writ petition does not pertain to challenge of allotment of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was precisely for this reason that at the time when the writ petition was framed M/s. Raichand Mohanlal was not impleaded as party-respondent and subsequently only by an application M/s. Raichand Mohanlal has come as party-respondent.