HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12261/2025 M/s. Subham And Company, Near Ghoom Chakkar, Sanwali Road, Dujod, Sikar Through Its Proprietor Ramavtar Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 15, Dujod, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO), Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its Chairman. 2. Sr. Dy. General Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Industrial Area, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.02.2024, by which the respondents have cancelled the allotment of the subject plot in favour of the petitioner. The auction notice dated 31.07.2025 has also been assailed by way of filing the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plot No.D-294 was allotted to the petitioner by the respondents on certain terms and conditions. Counsel submits that the petitioner could not deposit the amount in time, as desired by (2 of 4) [CW-12261/2025] the respondents, hence, his allotment was cancelled on 15.02.2024, thereafter, he submitted an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, but the same was withdrawn on the basis of an ill-advice that the decision would be taken at the appropriate level of Managing Director. Thereafter, the second appeal was preferred before the respondents, however, the same was not decided on its merits and was dismissed on the ground that the first appeal submitted by the petitioner was withdrawn, hence, second appeal was rejected of this count alone. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding dues, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to accept the same and not to auction the subject plot. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of making allotment in favour of the petitioner on 28.10.2021, the petitioner was directed to deposit the due amount within a period of thirty days, but even after expiry of considerable time, no amount was deposited. Thereafter, repeated notices were issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2022, 11.10.2022, 23.11.2022, 09.12.2022 and 27.07.2023 and final notice was issued on 20.10.2023. Counsel submits that when the outstanding dues were not deposited by the petitioner, the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled. Counsel submits that even after cancellation of the allotment, the petitioner submitted one more application in the unit office of RIICO stating therein that a sympathetic view may be taken in his favour and (3 of 4) [CW-12261/2025] reasonable time be granted to him to deposit the due amount on or before 10.03.2024. Counsel submits that considering the aforesaid request made by the petitioner, one more opportunity was granted to the petitioner to deposit the outstanding dues on or before 10.03.2024 by issuing a letter dated 27.02.2024, but in-spite of above, the amount was not deposited, thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him for taking possession of the subject plot. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that a conditional allotment order was issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 2021 and as per the terms and conditions of the same, the amount was supposed to be deposited by the petitioner within a stipulated time and when the due amount was not deposited by the petitioner, several notices were issued to him by the respondents on 24.08.2022, 11.10.2022, 23.11.2022, 09.12.2022 and 27.07.2023 and 20.10.2023 and thereafter, finally the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.02.2024. Even after cancellation of the aforesaid allotment, upon the request made by the petitioner, one more opportunity was granted to him to deposit the total outstanding dues on or before 10.03.2024. This order was passed on the application (4 of 4) [CW-12261/2025] submitted by the petitioner, but in-spite of the above, the petitioner has failed to deposit the outstanding dues. 6. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in depositing the amount, rather he was only buying time by way of filing application. Had it been the case of the petitioner that he was ready to deposit the amount, but could not deposit the entire amount or any amount in part, then the things would have been different, but the fact remains that not a single penny was deposited by him in between 2021 till the date of cancellation of the allotment or even after cancellation. 7. This Court finds no justification in the stand of the petitioner for withdrawing the appeal and filing second appeal. Keeping in view all above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Looking to the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, this Court finds not merit and substance in this petition. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/122