HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14153/2025 1. M/s Balaji Trading Company, Address At-137-A, Shrinathpuram, Behind Chittora Bhawan, Kota, Through Its One Of The Partners-Smt. Rajni Jindal. 2. Smt. Rajni Jindal Partner Of M/s Balaji Trading Company, Address At-137-A, Shrinathpuram, Behind Chittora Bhawan, Kota. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation, Riico, Through Managing Director, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302015. 2. The Area Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation RIICO, Baran. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar Mr. Shubham Rohila JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/09/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation (for short “RIICO”), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 30.05.2025, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the Area Manager, RIICO, Baran has been rejected by treating the same as time barred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plot No.G-217 at Industrial Area IID Centre, Baran was allotted to the (2 of 3) [CW-14153/2025] petitioners through allotment letter dated 18.08.2011, against which a show cause notice was issued to them for cancellation of the allotment. Learned counsel further submits that the show cause notice was served on the alleged address of the petitioners, which was changed after passing of the allotment order. Learned counsel submits that show cause notice issued by the respondents with regard to the proposed cancellation was never served upon the petitioners on the changed registered address, hence, the petitioners could not submit their response to the aforesaid show cause notice and, thereafter, the cancellation order was passed on 10.01.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were not aware about passing of the aforesaid cancellation order, as the same was not communicated to them on the changed registered address, hence, under these circumstances, slight delay has occurred in filing the appeal before the respondent-RIICO. Learned counsel submits that all these facts were not noticed by the respondent-RIICO and the appeal has been rejected on the technical ground of delay and the same has not been decided on its merits, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was explained by the petitioners in the memo of appeal, but the respondent-RIICO has not taken into account the explanation so furnished by the petitioners and the appeal has (3 of 3) [CW-14153/2025] been dismissed on the ground of being time barred and the same has not been decided on its merits. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reasons of delay have been well-explained by the petitioners before the respondent-RIICO, which have been over-looked, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set- aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent-RIICO to decide the appeal submitted by the petitioners on its merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously as early as possible. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/56