HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10263/2025 Dmms Industries, Having Its Office At 1204, Baroda Mor (12), Sonipat Baroda, Sonipat, Haryana Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sumit Kumar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Managing Director, Riico, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 2. Regional Manager, Office Of Regional Manager, Riico, Ghiloth Industrial Area, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “a) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, the forfeiture of the earnest money by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents RIICO may kindly be directed to refund the earnest money of Rs. 73,94,820/-. And or in the alternative and without prejudice above, b) By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents RIICO may kindly be directed to consider the bid submitted by petitioner for general zone. c) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition a challenge has been led by the petitioner upon the auction by the respondent i.e. (2 of 3) [CW-10263/2025] RIICO, by which the earnest money of the petitioner has been forfeited. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Plot No.SP3-166 was auctioned by the RIICO, which was falling under the Ceramic, Glass and Engineered Stone Zone. Counsel submits that the petitioner is dealing with Iron and Fabrication and he participated in the auction proceedings and he was successful bidder, thereafter, he deposited some part of the bid amount and earnest money. Counsel submits that a demand note was issued by the respondents directing the petitioner to pay the balance amount. Counsel submits that at this stage, the petitioner submitted several applications for correction of the Zone from Ceramic, Glass and Engineered Stone Zone to Iron Fabrication. Counsel submits that the said application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.04.2024. Counsel submits that in case, the respondents are not inclined to allot the auction property to the petitioner, then, the RIICO may return the earnest money of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has violated the principles of natural of justice, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. (3 of 3) [CW-10263/2025] 4. Without going into the controversy involved in this petition, as to whether the petitioner was entitled to get the said auctioned property or not, and whether the petitioner is entitled to get the earnest money back or not at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid issues, but looking to the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 26.04.2024 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore considering the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the respondents. 5. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, it is expected from the respondents to decide the same expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter, after affording due opportunity of hearing by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to decide the representation in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/12