[2025:RJ-JP:23850] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9065/2025 M/s. Volta Switchgear India Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Office At Plot No. H-2099, Ramchandpura, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Director, Kesar Meena W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena, R/o 251/06, Pratap Enclave, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Ra- jasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. Riico), Having Office At Udyog Bhawan,c- Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Managing Director. 2. Senior Deputy General Manager, Riico Limited, Jaipur (Ru- ral) Having Its Office 22Godown, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/06/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the respondents by which the application submitted by the petitioner seeking allot- ment has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has ex- plained each and every aspect of non-deposition of the required amount with the respondents by way of filing a representation in the form of notice for demand of justice along with a Demand Draft of Rs. 15,86,756/-. Counsel for the petitioner submits that [2025:RJ-JP:23850] (2 of 3) [CW-9065/2025] inspite of receipt of the aforesaid representation, till date, no or- ders have been passed, hence interference of this Court is war- ranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and pe- rused the material available on record. 4. Without entering into the controversy involved in this writ petition but looking to the fact that against the impugned order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted a detailed comprehensive representation in the form of notice for demand of justice along with a Demand Draft of the aforesaid amount. The said representation is still lying pending for adjudication before the respondents and the same has not been decided on its merits by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Considering the above, the present writ petition stands dis- posed of with direction to the respondents to decide the represen- tation/notice for demand of justice expeditiously as early as possi- ble preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of re- ceipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. For a period of four weeks, the respondents would not make allotment of the site in question to any other person. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of 8. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any order or direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way, the re- spondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accor- dance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:23850] (3 of 3) [CW-9065/2025] 9. In case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/58