[2025:RJ-JP:3210] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16954/2018 1. Raj Kumar Goyal Son Of Shri Bhagirath Prasad, aged about 62 years R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Deleted Since Deceased) Through Lrs - 1/1. Smt. Shakuntala Goyal W/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 59 Years, (Already On Record As Petitioner No. 2) 1/2. Jay Vardhan Agarwal S/o Late Shri Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 36 Years, 1/3. Devendra Goyal S/o Late Shri Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 34 Years, 1/4. Payal Goyal D/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 26 Years, All are R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Smt. Shakuntala Goyal W/o Shri Raj Kumar Goyal, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 38/157, Madhyam Marg, Kiran Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Secretary. 2. Dy. Commissioner, Zone-Prn (South), Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain with Mr. Roshan Vishwakarma Ms. Kriti Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kuri with Mr. Harshvardhan Shekhawat Ms. Nandini Mirdha Mr. Dharma Ram HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order [2025:RJ-JP:3210] (2 of 2) [CW-16954/2018] 22/01/2025 This writ petition is directed against the notice dated 24.05.2018 issued by the respondent-Jaipur Development Authority under Section 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1982’). Indisputably, the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy against the notice impugned under Section 83 of the Act of 1982 before the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority. The writ petition is bereft of any reason as to why without exhausting the alternative remedy, this writ petition has been filed. Confronted with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the reference application no………./2018 (Annexure 4), would submit that he has assailed the validity of the notice therein. However, this Court is not convinced with the aforesaid submission inasmuch as in the prayer clause of the reference petition, validity of the subject notice is not under challenge. In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed for availability of the alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioners. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/s-352