The court upheld the constitution of the Infrastructure Development Committee, ruling that it did not violate natural justice principles, as the decision-maker in the second appeal was not the same individual who decided the first appeal.

JUDGMENT :

1) This order disposes S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13890/2021 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5954/2025.

2) The Writ Petition No. 13890/2021 challenges the proceedings pending before the Infrastructure Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as “IDC”) of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “RIICO”) on the grounds that the Chairman of RIICO, who decided the petitioner’s first appeal, is also a member of the IDC, which is competent to decide the second appeal and the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the principle that no person shall be a judge in his own cause and that the adjudicating authority must be impartial and act without any kind of bias.

3) The Writ Petition No. 5954/2025 is filed challenging the show cause notice of eviction issued underRajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1964”)

4) The brief facts leading to the present writ petitions are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner was allotted industrial plots No. E-593 to E- 596, and F-609 to F-615 in the Industrial Area Karni (Extension) for setting up an industrial unit for the manufacture of sugar- based products with an investment of Rs. 39.62 crores. Subsequently, a lease deed was executed on 30.09.2012 between the petitioner and RIICO. One of the conditions of the allotment was that the petitioner was required to commence production on the allotted land by 10.04.2019. The Senior Regional Manager of RIICO, Bikaner, issued a notice dated 30.04.2019 to the petitioner to show cause why the allotment of land should not be canceled for failing to commence production on the land as per the conditions of the allotment. The petitioner submitted an explanation in response to the notice, claiming that RIICO itself had failed to obtain Environmental Clearance until 11.04.2017 and, therefore, it could not place the blame on the petitioner.

5) The Respondent No. 4, being dissatisfied with the explanation, passed an order dated 25.11.2019, canceling the allotment of land made in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of RIICO, and by order dated 13.12.2019, the Chairman dismissed the first appeal. Against the dismissal, the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the IDC of RIICO. Such proceedings are currently pending before the IDC.

6) The case set up by the respondents shows that the respondents allotted industrial plots to the petitioner in terms of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1979”). The conditions of allotment indicate that the petitioner was required to set up the industry within two years from the date of allotment, with a minimum investment of Rs. 39.62 crores. The RIICO obtained the Environmental Clearance certificate on 11.04.2017. Till then, the petitioner could not commence any project work. The respondents issued notices on 20.12.2017, 05.03.2018, 13.04.2018, 26.06.2018, 05.11.2018, and 11.01.2019, asking the petitioner to complete the project within two years from the date of Environmental Clearance, i.e., by 10.04.2019. The petitioner, however, could not complete the project within the stipulated time. The petitioner submitted an application for an extension of time and also requested a reduction in the minimum investment requirement. This request was forwarded to RIICO, but it was subsequently rejected. In these circumstances, a show-cause notice was issued, asking for an explanation regarding the proposed cancellation of the allotment. Having found the explanation unsatisfactory, the respondent No. 4 canceled the allotment of land. The petitioner availed the remedy of filing a first appeal, but was unsuccessful. The second appeal lies before the IDC, and the petitioner also filed the second appeal before the IDC. The IDC consists o