[2025:RJ-JP:31529] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.71/2013 Umesh Thakur S/o Shri Govind Thakur, Plot No. B-11A, Govindpuri Janata Nagar Rakadi, Sodhala Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Local Bodies, Local Self Government Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Its Executive Officer. 4. Commissioner, Civil Line Zone, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur 5. Jaipur Development Authority Through Secretary, Indra Gandhi Circle, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG with Mr. Suryapratap Singh Rajawat, Asst. GC & Mr. Manoj Kumar Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Dharma Ram Ms. Nandini Mirdha Mr. Harshvardhan Shekhawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition and:- [2025:RJ-JP:31529] (2 of 4) [CW-71/2013] (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the permitted place and further respondents be restrained to interfere in the business of the petitioner at the permitted place and further direct to the respondent to decide the application annexure-3 of petitioner and thereby allot a kiosk manufactured by respondents on the aforesaid permitted place and issue an order for the installment of light and water connection on the same. (ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to receive the future amount of lease/rent for the permitted place to put the stall and further be restrained to allot the place to any other person for any other purpose. (iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed that without following the due process of law and affording an opportunity of hearing petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the place and his temporary establishment of trade shall not be removed from the permitted/allotted place. (iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to receive the charges for lease money/rent of the place and be directed to grant the lease to the petitioner for the permitted place. (v) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of petitioner. (vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions against the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of kiosk. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of kiosk before the respondent No.3 on 13.03.2000, but inspite of passing of considerable time, till date the said application submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:31529] (3 of 4) [CW-71/2013] petitioner has not been decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that Rajasthan Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules, 2016 (for short “the Rules of 2016”) has come into effect w.e.f. 22.02.2016 and the procedure has been prescribed for filing of application for allotment of Kiosk under Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. Learned counsel submits that, in case, fresh application is submitted by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose, the same would be considered and decided by them in accordance with law. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. It appears that for allotment of kiosk, an application was submitted by the petitioner in the year 2000 and the same has not been decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 7. It also appears that during pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have come with the Rules of 2016, wherein Rule 16 deals with the procedure for filing of application and disposal of the application in a prescribed manner. 8. Hence, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file one more application as per Rule 16 of the Rules of 2016. In case, any such application is submitted by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably [2025:RJ-JP:31529] (4 of 4) [CW-71/2013] within a period of six weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 9. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/61