[2025:RJ-JP:22820] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7342/2025 1. Smt. Sajeeda Begum W/o Sh. Fazlu Raheem Khan, Resident Of Kamani Gate, Dargah Bazaar, Ajmer (Raj.) 2. Ameen Khan S/o Sh. Fazlu Raheem Khan, Resident Of Kamani Gate, Dargah Bazaar, Ajmer (Raj.) 3. Amir Khan S/o Sh. Fazlu Raheem Khan, Resident Of Kamani Gate, Dargah Bazaar, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, Rajasthan Through Its Commissioner. 2. Authorised Officer Cum Officer-In-Charge, Prevention Of Illegal Construction Branch, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Sharma Mr. Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/05/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned seizure notice dated 20.12.2024 passed by the respondent. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the seizure was confined to a period of ninety days but inspite of passing considerable time, till date, the seal put on the premises of the petitioners has not been opened. Counsel submits that before passing the aforesaid order, neither any notice nor any opportunity [2025:RJ-JP:22820] (2 of 3) [CW-7342/2025] of hearing was provided to the petitioners, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that the notice under Section 194(7)(h) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009’) was issued to one Fazlu, who happens to be the husband of the petitioner, regarding removal of unauthorized and illegal construction and thereafter, last notice was issued on 10.12.2024 and finally the seizure order was passed on 20.12.2024. The husband of the petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid notice and thereafter, the petitioner also submitted an application before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer for removal of the seizure on 11.01.2025 and when no orders were passed upon the same, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice upon the respondents regarding validity of the seizure. This Court is not going into the controversy involved in this matter, as it is required to be considered by the Competent Authority i.e. Ajmer, Municipal Corporation but the said authority cannot sit over the matter if the order of seizure was valid for a period of ninety days only and when reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by the petitioner on 11.01.2025, and notice for demand of justice was also served on 10.03.2025. Thus, it is the bounden duty of the authorities concerned to decide the said application/representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Considering the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file a fresh [2025:RJ-JP:22820] (3 of 3) [CW-7342/2025] representation before the respondents, thereafter it is expected from the authority concerned to decide the same, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/417