HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8381/2020

Raghav Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At E-7,

Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, Through Its Director Mr. Pankaj Somani

S/o Shri Krishan Gopal Somani, Age About 45 Years, R/o E-7,

Basant Vihar, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. Of

Rajasthan, Industrial Development And State Enterprises,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment

Corporation Ltd. (RIICO), Through Its Managing Director,

Having Office At Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3.

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial

Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO)

Having Its Office At Industrial Area, Biliya, Road No. 2,

Pur Road, Bhilwara.

4.

Anil Toshniwal S/o Ramji Toshniwal, R/o Behind Sitaram Ji

Ki Bawdi Near Seva Sadan, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sanjay Nahar through V.C.

For Respondent(s)

:

Ms. Nidhi Singhvi for Mr. Sanjeet

Purohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

27/01/2022

1.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

challenging the auction notice dated 19.08.2020, issued by the

RIICO.

2.

The petitioner has come with a specific case that the

allotment of land made in favour of the respondent No.4 was

(2 of 3)

[CW-8381/2020]

cancelled, whereagainst the respondent No.4 had filed an appeal,

which too was rejected by the appellate authority vide its order

dated 13.02.2014.

3.

According to the petitioner it had purchased the subject

industrial plot from the respondent No.4 on 13.01.2011, much

before its allotment in favour of respondent No.4 was cancelled

(12.07.2012).

4.

The petitioner has placed on record a photostat copy of the

registered sale deed executed in its favour.

5.

It is contended that the petitioner came to know about the

plot being auctioned and the allotment had been cancelled only

after the auction notice was published in the newspaper.

6.

Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited

Court’s attention towards the representation dated 08.08.2020,

vide which the petitioner company had requested the Regional

Manager of the RIICO (respondent No.3) to regularise the

industrial plot in question in its favour in terms of Rule 24(3) of

the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as

“the Rules of 1979”), which provides for restoration of allotment of

cancelled plots.

7.

It is not in dispute that the auction proceedings which were

scheduled to take place pursuant to auction notice dated

19.08.2020, has failed as no buyer turned up and the same has

not yet been offered/placed for auction.

8.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this

Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a

direction to the respondent No.3 – competent authority of the

RIICO to consider petitioner’s representation dated 08.08.2020, in

(3 of 3)

[CW-8381/2020]

accordance with law, before the subject plot is again put to

auction.

9.

It will be open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation

alongwith relevant documents and a certified copy of the order

instant before the respondent No.3, who shall take appropriate

decision in accordance with law preferably within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

10.

In case respondent - RIICO is of the view that the land

cannot be restored in petitioner’s favour in terms of Rule 24(3) of

the Rules of 1979, he shall pass a speaking order under intimation

to the petitioner, against which petitioner’s right to take legal

remedies shall stand reserved.

11.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the repres