[2025:RJ-JP:36545] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13675/2025 Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Ghamman Ram Meena, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village-Karodi, Via-Manpur, Tehsil-Sikrai, District- Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residencial Area, C-Scheme, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan 302016. 2. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Dausa, Lalsot Road Dausa-303303 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Meena with Mr.Pawan Singh Meena and Mr.Rahul Sehra JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/09/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned e-Auction notice dated 25.08.2025 issued by the Commissioner Municipal Council, Dausa by which the applications have been invited to participate in the auction proceedings for purchase of certain plots. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar notice was issued by the respondents on 28.05.2025, wherein the petitioner participated in the auction proceedings and he was the highest bidder for Plot No.C-04. Counsel submits that instead of finalising the bid as offered by the petitioner, the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:36545] (2 of 3) [CW-13675/2025] have returned the EMD amount in the bank account of the petitioner, without cancelling the bid so offered by the petitioner. 3. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (for short, “the Act of 2012”), the appeal is lying pending for adjudication on its merits before the First Appellate Authority and the said appeal has not been decided and during pendency of the said appeal, a subsequent e-Auction notice in the form of an advertisement has been issued on 25.08.2025 for auctioning the same plot No.C-04 along-with other plots. Counsel submits that unless and until the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the earlier arbitrary action of the respondents is not decided, the respondents cannot re-advertise the same auction notice of the same plot for which the petitioner has submitted the highest bid, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 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 petitioner and looking to the fact that when the earlier bid so offered by the petitioner was accepted by the respondents, but his amount has been returned in his bank account, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Act of 2012 before the First Appellate Authority and when the same was still lying pending for its adjudication, the respondents have issued a subsequent notice dated 25.08.2025 for auction of the other plots along-with the subject land. [2025:RJ-JP:36545] (3 of 3) [CW-13675/2025] 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court was expected to decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible, but instead of doing so, the Authorities concerned issued a subsequent notice. 7. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by issuing direction to the First Appellate Authority to decide the pending appeal, expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dispose of. 9. For a period of four weeks, the plot in question shall not be auctioned. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /43