SOMYA BUILDCON LLP v. THE ADDITIONAL LABOR COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO
CW/13520/2025 · 2025-11-12
Baljinder Singh Sandhu, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38946 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38946 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:45470-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13520/2025 Somya Buildcon Llp, Through Partner Pawan Kumar Sidana S/o Arvind Kumar Sidana, Aged About 45 Years, R/o D 73-A, Kusum Vihar, Ramnagariya Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus
1. The Additional Labor Commissioner And Ex-Officio, Joint Government Secretary Labour Commissioner Office Building, Shanti Nagar Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Raj.
2. The Cess Assessment Officer And Divisional Joint Labor Commissioner, Shanti Nagar, Hasanpura, Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Dass with Mr. Alok Kumar Gopalia HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 12/11/2025
1. The challenge is to the order passed by the respondent- Authority namely, Additional Labour Commissioner and Ex-officio Joint Government Secretary, who is the Appellate Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘the RERA Act, 2016’).
2. The Appellate Authority has reached to the conclusion that after service of notice, the petitioner did not respond to the notice. After considering the notice and facts of the case, it is found that the order passed by the concerned officer under Sections 11 and 12 of the RERA Act, 2016, do not warrant any interference. It was
[2025:RJ-JP:45470-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-13520/2025] also noticed that the appeal was time barred and had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act.
3. Having noticed the aforesaid aspects, we do not find any reason to differ from the view taken by the concerned Appellate Authority.
4. The writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/30