[2025:RJ-JP:16415] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5458/2025 M/s Limra Enterprises, Through Proprietor Salim, Having Regis- tered Office At 4215, Purani Kotwali, Sikariyon Ka Mohalla, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Ur- ban Development Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Ra- jasthan. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Greater Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (First), Revenue, Municipal Corporation, Greater Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Proprietorship Imran Ahmd, Through Sole Proprietor Im- ran Ahmd., Having Registered Office At 2261, Pandit Shiv- deen Ji Ka Raasta, Roopvyas Ki Gali, Kishenpol Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Buddhi Prakash Meena Mr.Saurabh Vaishnav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the follow- ing prayer:- “(I) The instant petition for writ may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direc- tion in the appropriate nature may kindly be is- sued in favour of the humble petitioner institute; (II) The respondents may be directed to kindly let the petitioner operate the parking spece out- [2025:RJ-JP:16415] (2 of 3) [CW-5458/2025] side Sanganeri Gate till the E-Auctioning for the sid parking space takes place and further not gr- rant the work-Order in favour of the Respondent No.4 as the Respondent No.4 is a blacklisted firm; (III) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circum- stances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner; (IV) The cost of the present writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble peti- tioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the Tender Bid Proceedings for parking space and the bid offered by the petitioner was accepted and he was granted the contract for running the parking for a period commencing w.e.f. 04.11.2022 till 03.11.2023 and the said contractual engage- ment for running the parking was extended from time to time. Counsel submits that now, the respondents are not extending the period of contract of the petitioner and they are bent upon to grant the contract to the respondent No.4 who was already black- listed by the respondents themselves in the year 2022. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. No documents has been placed on the record by the peti- tioner in support of his contention that the respondents are going to grant the contract of the parking in favour of the respondent No.4. It appears that under apprehension and without having any [2025:RJ-JP:16415] (3 of 3) [CW-5458/2025] cause of action, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition. 5. It is the well-settled proposition of law, unless the cause of action has arisen to approach the Court, the petition is not main- tainable. Hence, on this count alone, the petition stands rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the con- cerned Authority for redressal of his grievances. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /30