1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res- integra, as it is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dalpat Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5211/2021), decided on 18.07.2023; relevant portion reads as under :-

“36. Thus, this Court finds that the impugned action and the decision of the State Government is ad-verbetum the same and the reason for cancelling the LoIs/PLs of the present petitioners is the same as was for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd.

37. The action of the State Government is such that it has failed to exercise degree of fairness and rather the action of the State Government is highly discriminatory as on one hand, when the impugned action of the State has been held to be invalid and the impugned orders have also been quashed and set aside by this Court in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and on the other hand, the plea of the State Government that the present writ petitions may be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available, is found to be ex-facie discriminatory. Thus, in such facts and circumstances of the case, writ jurisdiction can be exercise and mere existence of alternative remedy cannot preclude the petitioners from invoking the writ jurisdiction and it would be highly arbitrary and unjust to relegate the parties to avail statutory remedy of revision after such a long battle before this Court and particularly this one being the second round of litigation.

38. This Court, vide its judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has already adjudicated upon the controversy involved in the present writ petitions and thus the point of distinguishing the case on the ground that the present petitioners have not availed the statutory alternative remedy of revision petition does not sustain. This Court, while keeping in view that a set of persons on the same pedestal had been granted relief whereas the present petitioners, while deviating in a process of seeking separate remedy, have been deprived of their valuable rights. Both the set of persons, who were granted LoIs/PLs ought to have been treated in law on an equal footing. The relief sought is similar to the relief sought in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the same thus ought to be granted on the same pedestal. It is another thing that on determination of merits also, the petitioners succeed because the statute saves their applications for LoIs/PLs and the respondents have not been able to point out any illegality in continuing with the process of rights that had already accrued to the petitioners and crystalized.

39. Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The impugned orders cancelling LoIs/PLs of the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to proceed in the matter as per the directions given in the case of M/s. Kamlesh Metacast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in accordance with law.

40. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ”

2. On such submission, the present writ petition is also allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgment Dalpat Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). Stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.