HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11492/2025 Bajrang Lal Bhamu Son Of Shri Chuna Ram, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of- Gram Patlisar Chhota, Tehsil- Sardar Shahar, District- Churu, 331403, Rajasthan, ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, (Riico), Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan Through Managing Director, 2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, RIICO, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan Through Chairman, 3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, RIICO, Bhaleri Road, Churu-331001, Rajasthan Through Regional Head Email- Churu@riico.co.in. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the respondents by which the highest bid offered by the petitioner to purchase the Plot No. F-5 at Industrial Area, Sardar Shahar Extension, Churu has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the E-auction proceedings to purchase the aforesaid plot and he offered the highest bid. Counsel submits that (2 of 3) [CW-11492/2025] vide letter dated 09.11.2023, the respondents directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,88,682/- within a period of thirty days and the aforesaid letter was dispatched on 10.11.2023 and the same was received by the petitioner on 20.11.2023 but at the relevant time, the petitioner was out of India and immediately after returning from abroad, the petitioner generated the bank challan on 09.12.2023 for Rs. 35,89,712/- however the same was not successful due to technical issue. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the aforesaid amount in two parts i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 15,89,712/- via NEFT on 10.12.2023. Counsel submits that inspite of receipt of the aforesaid amount, the respondents have passed the impugned order for forfeiting a sum of Rs. 8,52,638/-. Counsel submits that the delay on the part of the petitioner was bonafide on account of his non-availability in India, however, under Rules pertaining to E-Auction, the discretion lies with the authorities who extend the time to deposit the auction amount but in the instant case, the respondents have failed to do so. Counsel submits that even a notice for demand of justice was also served by the petitioner before the respondents but no heed has been paid and straightway the impugned order has been passed, which requires interference of this Court. 3. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner has offered highest bid amount and he was successful bidder. The respondent-RIICO vide its letter dated 09.11.2023 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,88,682/- within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance of the letter, the letter itself (3 of 3) [CW-11492/2025] was dispatched on the next date i.e. 10.12.2023 and the same was received by the petitioner on 20.11.2023. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was out of the country at the relevant time, hence he generated the bank challan on 09.12.2023 and thereafter deposit the aforesaid amount via NEFT on 10.12.2023. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, when the letter itself was dispatched on 10.11.2023 and the petitioner has deposited the amount on 10.12.2023 i.e. within thirty days and the petitioner has submitted a detailed comprehensive representation in the light of the notice for demand of justice. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, before passing the impugned order, the respondents were considered the same and proceed further but in the instant case, they have failed to do so, hence under such circumstances, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to re-revisit the matter and in consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, pass fresh order, after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from today. 7. For a period of four weeks, the respondents are directed to maintain the status quo. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/10