[2025:RJ-JP:26953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10743/2025 Sh. Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 25, Brajraj Nagar, Vijaypura Road, Agra Road, Jamdoli, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Heritage, Rajasthan 3. The Deputy Commissioner (First), Revenue, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Heritage, Rajasthan 4. The Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Heritage, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh for Mr. Anirudh Tyagi For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “i) The instant petition for writ may kindly be ordered to be allowed and a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favor of the humble petitioner institute; ii) The Respondents may be directed to set aside and quash the Work Order bearing No. 468 dated 13/12/2024 issued pursuant to the in favor E-Tender of No. the petitioner 324/2024 dated 05/09/2024 and further [2025:RJ-JP:26953] (2 of 4) [CW-10743/2025] refund the amount of Rs. 8,37,000/- paid by the petitioner to the Respondent Department as 1/3rd of the minimum bidding amount: iii) The Respondents may be directed to not charge the petitioner the first installment for the parking space and quash the office order No. 145/2025 dated 30/06/2025 and Order No. 161/2025 dated 04/07/2025 vide which the Respondent No.3 has directed the petitioner to pay the 1st installment amount of Rs. 8,37,000/- for the parking space arising out of the work order No.468 dated 13/12/2024; iv) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner; v) The cost of the present Writ Petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the humble Petitioner.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the successful bidder for the auction of the parking space at M.I. Road pursuant to E-auction bearing No. 324/2024. However, the same was not provided to the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner deposited the certain amount to the respondent- Corporation in terms of the condition of the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, ‘the NIT’). Counsel submits that when the physical possession of the parking was not provided to the petitioner, the petitioner requested the authority to refund the amount deposited by him but no heed was paid. Counsel submits that the petitioner approached in the office of Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation Heritage by filing a representation on 29.01.2025 and on the representation itself, an endorsement was made by the Mayor for treating the contract of the petitioner as cancelled and refund his amount. Counsel submits that instead of acting upon the directions issued by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation and instead [2025:RJ-JP:26953] (3 of 4) [CW-10743/2025] of refunding the deposited amount, the respondents have issued two notices to the petitioner on 30.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 asking the petitioner to deposit the first installment of the contract NIT. Counsel submits that once a decision has been taken by the Mayor for cancellation of the contract of the petitioner and refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner then there was no reason or occasion available with the respondent-corporation to issue the impugned notices, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and consideration the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that once the Mayor, Municipal Corporation has considered the grievance raised by the petitioner, and certain directions have been issued to the authorities concerned, it was expected from the respondent-Corporation to do the needful. 5. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands disposed of, by issuing direction to the respondent-Corporation to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 29.01.2025, taking into count the endorsement made by the Mayor and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. For a period of five weeks, the notices dated 30.06.2025 and 04.07.2025 shall not be given effect to and are kept in abeyance. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J [2025:RJ-JP:26953] (4 of 4) [CW-10743/2025] Ashu/30