[2025:RJ-JP:24425] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9372/2025 M/s Khandelwal Traders, Through Its Proprietor Harishankar Khandelwal, S/o Shri Omprakash Khandelwal, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Thanagazi, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Chairman. 2. Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur 3. Senior Regional Manager Cum Unit Head, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (Riico), Udhyog Bhawan, Moti Dungri Road, Alwar. 4. Naresh Saini S/o Shri Ramjilal Saini, R/o Lala Ki Dhani, Thanagaji, District- Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr.Ajay Poonia & Mr.Anil Gupta For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/07/2025 1. The allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents vide order dated 12.07.2024 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Managing Director RIICO, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 23.10.2024 against which a second appeal under Section 24(2)(b) of RIICO Disposal [2025:RJ-JP:24425] (2 of 3) [CW-9372/2025] of Land Rules, 1979 (for short, “the Rules of 1979”) is lying pending before the Chairman, RIICO since 04.11.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the respondent have auctioned the land in question without waiting for outcome of the second appeal, hence, 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 record. 4. Perusal of the record as well as the prayer mentioned in the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the respondents by which the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled and the validity of the first appellate order dated 23.10.2024 has also been assailed in this petition. 5. It is the settled proposition of law that a person cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the same order, once the petitioner had already availed the remedy of filing second appeal, assailing the validity of the aforesaid orders, this Court is afraid to entertain the instant writ petition. 6. On this count alone, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the Second Appellate Authority, i.e., Chairman, RIICO to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Needless to observe, the petitioner would be at liberty to assail the action of the respondents, by which the land in question [2025:RJ-JP:24425] (3 of 3) [CW-9372/2025] was auctioned during pendency of the said appeal, before the Second Appellate Authority. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /25