Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24364 (RAJ)

RAI SINGH CHOUDHARY SO SHRI AMARCHAND CHOUDHARY v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CW/10586/2025 · 2025-07-24

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:27809] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10586/2025 Rai Singh Choudhary So Shri Amarchand Choudhary, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Plot No. B-21, Jagdishpuri-Second, Bin- dayaka, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Secre- tary, Indra Circule, J. L. N. Marg Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Rajasthan. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Zone -12, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The District Collector, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. The Police Commissioner, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Dhariwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/07/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the illegal encroachment over the public road situated at Jagdishpuri-Second Colony, Bindayaka, Jaipur (Raj.). Counsel submits that despite submitting several representations/complaints before the respondents including the Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Rajasthan, no steps have been taken to remove the encroachment over the public road. Counsel submits that respondents are under legal obligation to perform their statutory duty however, till date, no action has been taken on the complaints/representation submitted [2025:RJ-JP:27809] (2 of 5) [CW-10586/2025] by the petitioner despite the fact that a report has been submitted by the Tehsildar wherein it has been stated that alleged encroachment has been done recently. It is submitted that vide order dated 04.03.2025, the Additional District Magistrate has notified the JDA about the encroachment and has asked to take action to remove the said encroachment. Counsel submits that in these circumstances, respondents may be directed to take immediate action for removal of the encroachment over the public road situated at Jagdishpuri-Second Colony, Bindayaka, Jaipur (Raj.) Heard. Considered. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that petitioner has already submitted a representation to the respondent-authorities apprising them of encroachment over the public road situated at Jagdishpuri-Second Colony, Bindayaka, Jaipur (Raj.). A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SB Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024, held as under:- “Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their [2025:RJ-JP:27809] (3 of 5) [CW-10586/2025] grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take-away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. [2025:RJ-JP:27809] (4 of 5) [CW-10586/2025] In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. In terms of the directions noted above, the instant petition is disposed of.” In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, in view of the nature and controversy involved in the matter and the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of without issuing notices to the respondents with a direction to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before respondent No.3- The Deputy Commissioner, Zone -12, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Rajasthan within a period of two weeks from today. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner, authority concerned is directed to take necessary action in order [2025:RJ-JP:27809] (5 of 5) [CW-10586/2025] to remove the encroachment over the public road situated at Jagdishpuri-Second Colony, Bindayaka, Jaipur (Raj.), in accordance with law. The requisite exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order after providing opportunity of hearing to all the affected/interested parties. Pending application(s) (if any) also stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /72