[2025:RJ-JP:22150] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7732/2025 Hemant Hair Saloon, Through Its Owner Sh. Hemraj Sen S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Sen, Aged About 34 Years, R/o J.p. Nagar Tempo Stand, Madar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Having Address At, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305001. 2. Authorized Officer And Deputy Commissioner (North), Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 26/05/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice this writ petition may kindly be allowed and entire record of the case may kindly be called for and be perused by this Hon'ble Court, and the respondents may be directed not to demolish or to cause any damage to the shop of the petitioner as described in Para 2 of the Writ Petition and the illegal notice dated 13.02.2025 (Annexure 3) may also be quashed and set aside. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts [2025:RJ-JP:22150] (2 of 3) [CW-7732/2025] and circumstances of the case, same may kindly be given in favour of the petitioner. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned notice dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Ajmer Development Authority under Section 67 of the Ajmer Development Authority Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”) by which the petitioner has been called upon to submit his reply against the illegal/ unauthorized constructions done by them on the land in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in illegal occupation of the land in question, he is having valid licence to ply his shop and he has submitted application for regularization. Counsel submits that detailed reply to the aforesaid notice has been submitted by the petitioner in the Office of the respondents, but without deciding the same and without passing a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents are bent upon to evict/ eject the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that as many as 89 identical notices under Section 67 of the Act of 2013 have been served upon different persons out of which 69 persons have submitted their reply and the matter is still under consideration for adjudication and the respondents are not taking any action in these matters until a decision is taken for ready reference, factual report in this regard has been furnished which [2025:RJ-JP:22150] (3 of 3) [CW-7732/2025] also indicates that the same thing is narrated by counsel for the respondents. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and looking to the fact that reply to the notice under Section 67 of the Act of 2013 has been submitted by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities and the matter is subjudice before the authorities and they are in process of deciding the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the reply/ application submitted by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with law expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. It goes without saying if any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum of law within a period of 15 days thereafter. 7. For a period of three and half months, no action would be taken against the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/16