HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11929/2025 Shahanawaj S/o Abdul Aziz, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Masjid Gali, Thana Bheemganj, Rangpur, District Kota, (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Kota (South), Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Dusshera Maidan, C.a.d. Circle, Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav for Mr. Bharat Yadav For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/08/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned seizure notice dated 11.02.2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kota (North) by which the meat shop of the petitioner has been seized. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained sanction/license to run the meat shop from the Municipal Corporation, Kota in the year 2007 and the said license of the petitioner was extended from time to time and even on the date when the impugned seizure proceedings have been conducted, the petitioner was in possession of a valid license to run the meat shop. Counsel submits that without issuing any notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the (2 of 2) [CW-11929/2025] petitioner, the impugned seizure proceedings have been conducted by the respondents and the shop of the petitioner has been seized. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the seizure order dated 11.02.2025. 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 5. It is the settled proposition of law that before taking any adverse action against a person, it is expected from the authorities concerned to give him or her at least one opportunity of hearing but here in the instant case, neither notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him, hence under these circumstances, the impugned notice dated 11.02.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6 The respondents are directed to pass fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/12