HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11295/2025 M/s Rajul Kumar, Through Its Proprietor Rajul Kumar W/o Shri Vikas Kumar, House No.d-25/g, Second Floor, New Delhi South Extension-2, Andrews Ganj, South Delhi, Delhi- 110049. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 Through Managing Director. 2. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Dholpur, Rajasthan-328001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Managing Director, RIICO by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Rule 24(2)(b) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 (for short “the Rules of 1979”) against the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 has been rejected ex-parte. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 26.06.2024, the allotment of the plot of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub- Unit Office, RIICO at Dholpur. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2024, an appeal was preferred under Rule 24(2)(b) of the Rules of 1979 before the Managing Director (2 of 3) [CW-11295/2025] through her counsel and her counsel appeared in person to argue the appeal but the appeal has been rejected not on merits but on a technical count that the petitioner has failed to appear in person inspite of repeated directions issued to the petitioner to appear in person. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under the Rules of 1979 for personal appearance of the parties in person. Once an appeal has been preferred through counsel then appeal can be decided by the authorities concerned after hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, but in the instant case, inspite of there being presence of the counsel for the petitioner before the appellate authority, the appeal has been dismissed ex-parte, hence, the order impugned passed by the appellate authority is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the appropriate authority has cancelled the allotment of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 26.06.2024 against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner through her counsel under Rule 24(2)(b) of the Rules of 1979. Whenever the case was posted before the Appellate Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner was present before the appellate authority but the appellate authority was of the view that the physical presence of the petitioner was required and since the petitioner has failed to appear before the appellate authority, the appellate authority has proceeded ex-parte and passed the order impugned. (3 of 3) [CW-11295/2025] 7. Perusal of the entire Rules of 1979 indicates that there is no such statutory provision that requires the parties to appear in person before the appellate authority for disposal of its appeal. 8. Once an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner through her counsel, the appellate authority could have decided the appeal after hearing the arguments of counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner instead of deciding the appeal ex-parte. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. On this count alone, the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the appellate authority is not tenable and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal after hearing the counsel for the parties on its merits expeditiously as early as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/39