[2025:RJ-JP:41540] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15036/2025 1. Kureshi Meat Shop, Through Its Proprietor Kalu Kureshi S/o Abdul Vahab, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Main Road Anantpura, Kota (Rajasthan) 324010 2. Khichi Meat Shop, Through Its Proprietor Naveen Khichi S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bhamashah Mandi Road, Anantpura, Kota - 324005 (Rajasthan) 3. Bharat Meat Shop, Through Its Proprietor Arif Qureshi S/o Kalu Qureshi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Main Road Anantpura, Kota Ward 9, Kota- 324010 (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation Kota (South), Through Its Commissioner, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Dusshera Maidan, C.a.d. Circle, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kaswa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 13/10/2 025 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition have challenged the orders dated 14.05.2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kota (South), whereby the shops run by the petitioners have been seized without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 2. The petitioners have relied upon an order dated 11.07.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10202/2025; Shahid Meat Shop v. The State of [2025:RJ-JP:41540] (2 of 2) [CW-15036/2025] Rajasthan, and pray for similar protection. The aforesaid order dated 11.07.2025, reads as under:- “1. Aggrieved by the seizure order dated 14.05.2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kota (South), the instant writ petition has been preferred before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is running a meat shop and without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned seizure order has been passed against the petitioner and the shop of the petitioner has been seized. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the seizure order dated 14.05.2025. 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner but one notice with blank number and date was mentioned in the impugned order. 5. It is the settled proposition of law that before taking any adverse action against a person, it is expected from the authorities concerned to give him or her at least one opportunity of hearing but here in the instant case, neither notices was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him, hence under these circumstances, the order dated 14.05.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The respondents are directed to pass fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. In view of the above, the orders impugned in the present writ petition are quashed & set aside. The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court mutatis mutandis. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J SAHIL SONI /13