[2025:RJ-JP:27399] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10825/2025 Lokesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Late Shri Parbhati Lal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 41, Ratanam City, Near Woods Villa Resort, Sumel Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary, Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner, Heritage Nagar Nigam, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akriti Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/07/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to stop the illegal commercial activities in the residential area. It has been alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that certain persons are running shops in plot Nos. 7, 8 & 49 situated at Ratanam City, near Woods Villa Resort, Sumel Road, Jaipur (Raj.). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled law that commercial activities are prohibited in residential area. Counsel submits that in this regard, several representations have also been submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authorities and finally notice for demand of justice was also sent on 05.07.2025 to stop the commercial activities in the residential area however, no heed has been paid to the grievance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that in these circumstances, respondents may be [2025:RJ-JP:27399] (2 of 4) [CW-10825/2025] directed to take immediate action to stop the commercial activities in the residential area. Heard. Considered. On perusal of the material on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has already submitted several representations including before Commissioner, Heritage Nagar Nigam, Jaipur apprising them of illegal commercial activities in the residential area. It is trite law that the authorities concerned are bound to take appropriate action if matter is reported with regard to the commercial activities in residential area. 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:27399] (3 of 4) [CW-10825/2025] 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. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:27399] (4 of 4) [CW-10825/2025] 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 Commissioner, Heritage Nagar Nigam, Jaipur to take conscious decision upon the representation dated 30.06.2025 and/or the legal notice dated 05.07.2025 and to take necessary action to stop the commercial activities in the residential area, if any, in accordance with law. It is made clear that 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. Stay application and pending application(s) (if any) also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /99