HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10054/2025 M/s Bankey Bihari Oil Industries, Through Its Proprietor, Lalit Kumar Saxena Son Of Shri Rajesh Kumar Saxena, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of 3/285-286 Housing Board Colony, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthn, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Unit Head, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation, Birj Industrial Area, Bharatpur. 4. The Senior Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation, Ondila Road, Dholpur District Dholpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submit that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondents on 30.10.2024 under Rule 24 (1) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (for (2 of 3) [CW-10054/2025] short, ‘the Rules of 1979’) for cancellation of allotment of his plot. Counsel for the petitioner submits that 45 days were granted to the petitioner to submit his reply. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 30.10.2024, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner within the above stipulated time i.e. 45 days on 07.12.2024 by registered post in the office of the respondents. Counsel submits that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed by which the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Counsel submits that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the respondents while passing the aforesaid order. Counsel submits that once the reply to the show cause notice has been submitted in the office of the respondents by the registered post, even then the respondents have narrated the facts that no reply of the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner inspite of granting him time. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that a show cause notice was issued by the respondents to the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his reply within 45 days and in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner through registered post on 07.12.2024. It was bounden duty of the respondents to consider the reply and its contents before passing any adverse order against the petitioner. It appears that without perusing the reply submitted by the petitioner straightway the impugned order has been passed narrating therein that no (3 of 3) [CW-10054/2025] reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by the petitioner and the allotment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 4. In view of the above narrated circumstances, it is clear that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice as the reply and defence taken by the petitioner has not been taken into account by the respondents before passing the impugned order. 5. On this count alone, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass fresh orders, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, not beyond the period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of . (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/37