The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, including providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and disclosing the material being used against the affected party.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner-M/s. E.M.C.I.P.I. Infrastructure Private Limited (for short ‘the petitioner-Company’) by filing present writ petition craves indulgence of this Court to quash and set aside the communication/order dated 08.02.2017 issued to the petitioner-Company by the Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the JDA’) stating that in compliance of the order of the High Court in relation to Amani Shah Nala (Dravyavati River) and according to the report of the NEERI the width of Amani Shah Nala is 137 meter and Khasra Nos. 2540/2, 2542/2, 2540/3 and 2542/3 are effected and the JDA has a right to initiate action in compliance of the directions of the High Court. He also prayed to quash and set aside another notice dated 16.08.2018 which was placed on record with an additional affidavit.

2. Mr. A.M. Dhar, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Joshi, Ms. Anita Agarwal and Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor, submitted that the petitioner-Company purchased the agriculture land bearing Khasra Nos. 2540/2, 2542/2, 2540/3 and 2542/3 situated at Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, through a registered sale deed which was later-on converted from agriculture to commercial purpose and the JDA issued the commercial lease deed of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-Company. The petitioner-Company submitted a proposal for construction of a hotel and the respondent-JDA approved the map for construction of hotel on 01.06.2012 and also gave the permission to raise the construction. He further submitted that when the construction was under progress, the respondent-JDA without issuing any show cause notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, demolished the boundary wall at the site and tried to install their pillars. The petitioner-Company immediately approached the respondent-JDA and made a representation on 14.10.2016. When no fruitful purpose was served, the petitioner-Company filed a Reference Application No.541/2016 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’). The Appellate Tribunal passed the order dated 26.10.2016 in favour of the petitioner-Company. Even after the specific directions of the Appellate Tribunal that the construction raised by the petitioner-Company shall not be demolished without issuing any show cause notice and allowing opportunity of hearing, the respondent-JDA issued impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017. Sr. Counsel submitted that the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 is arbitrary, capricious and devoid of adherence to the cardinal principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 fails to outline the specific reasons for the initiation of actions against the petitioner-Company so as to justify the action. He also submitted that there is lack of clarity in the impugned communication/order dated 08.02.2017 and since the petitioner-Company has not encroached upon the government land as the lease deed has already been issued by the respondent-JDA of the land in favour of the petitioner-Company, the whole action of the respondent-JDA against the petitioner-Company is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Mr. Amit Kuri, counsel appearing for the respondent-JDA in the reply to the writ petition raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the count that the work of beautification and development of Dravavati River has been taken up by the State Government, in the larger public interest, under the directions/ orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. He also submitted that against the impugned communication/ order dated 08.02.2017 issued by the JDA, the petitioner-Company has got an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Sub-section (8)(a) of Section 83 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act of 1982’) before the Appel