HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12145/2025 1. Mr. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Late Jagannath Sharma, Aged About 64 Years, Being The Owner of Shree Agencies R/o F-79, Gautam Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan. 2. Mr. Avdesh Shara S/o Shri Ashok Shara, Aged About 45 Years, Being The Owner of An Sales, R/o D-97, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Mr. Ratan Lal Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Lal Agarwal, Aged About 71 Years, Being The Owner of Agarwal Tools And Hardware, R/o C-35, Shiv Colony, Airport Road, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Mr. Sumit Rawal S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Rawal, Aged About 52 Years, Being The Owner Of Om Prakash Narendra Kumar R/o 625B, 20 Dukan, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Bodies, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, G-3 Rajmahal Residency Area, Civil Lines Crossing, C-Scheme District Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Jaipur Heritage, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Office, Kishanpole Zone, Jaipur Heritage District Jaipur. 4. Police Station, Kotwali, Jaipur, Through Sho, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Chobisa Mr. Rachit Sharma Mr. Hanumant Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 (2 of 4) [CW-12145/2025] 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notices dated 31.07.2025 and 05.08.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (Heritage) under Section 243 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009’) by which a urgent notice has been issued to remove the dilapidated construction of the building or repair the same within a period of three days, failing which the appropriate proceedings under Section 194/243 of the Act of 2009 would be initiated. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are tenants in the subject premises and the respondents have not identified the specific area to indicate that which part or portion of the subject premises is dilapidated or dangerous. Counsel submits that without such clear identification, the notice/direction cannot be issued. Counsel submits that even no sanction has been granted to make out the necessary repairs if required. Counsel submits that several representations have been submitted by the petitioner in the office of the respondents but instead of deciding the same on its merit, again subsequent impugned notice has been issued on 05.08.2025 reiterating the same directions which was mentioned in the earlier impugned notice dated 31.07.2025. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the impugned notice dated 31.07.2025 as well as the subsequent impugned notice dated 05.08.2025 indicate that the same have been issued under Section 243 of the Act of 2009. (3 of 4) [CW-12145/2025] Section 243 of the Act of 2009 deals with the provisions of repairing/ demolition of the dangerous building and a mechanism has been provided under the aforesaid section as to what action is required to be taken by the Municipality. The petitioners are aggrieved by the aforesaid notices and the petitioners have tried to explain their version to the respondents by way of filing a representation. It appears that the representation submitted by the petitioners has not been decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the non-decision of the representation submitted by a person for redressal of his grievance amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Without considering the merits of the case, whether the subject premises is in dilapidated condition or not and whether the subject land is a dangerous building fit to be sustained or not. All these are required to be seen by the authorities concerned. 7. Looking to the fact that the representation submitted by the petitioners is still lying pending for adjudication on its merits, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing a direction to the respondents to decide the said representation of the petitioners within a period of fifteen days from today by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 8. For a period of three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order or direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners in a particular way, the (4 of 4) [CW-12145/2025] respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/118