[2025:RJ-JP:42602] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15640/2025 Hadoti Meat Shop And Chicken, Through Its Proprietor Abdul Bari S/o Abdul Wahab R/o Govind Nagar Main Road Ward No. 33 Kota Rajasthan-324003. ----Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Kota South, Through Its Commissioner, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Dusshera Maidan, Kota. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kaswa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 17/10/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8274/2025 (Nadeem Ansari & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is of similar nature and the same has already been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if a similar order for consideration of his representation is passed in the same terms. 2. The order passed by this Court in the case of Nadeem Ansari (supra) is quoted below:- “1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayer: “i) The respondents may kindly be directed to renew the license of Meat Shops of the petitioners in their respective area of Municipal Corporation, Kota. ii) The respondents may further be directed to open the Meat Shops of the petitioners forthwith which was seized and closed by the respondents in arbitrarily, malafide and discriminatory manner without providing them opportunity of being heard. iii) The respondents may also be directed to compensate the petitioners in term of moneyfor seizing and closing their Meat Shops and Business establishment. [2025:RJ-JP:42602] (2 of 2) [CW-15640/2025] iv) Any other order which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioners along with cost ofwrit petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were having valid licenses to run meat shops. The validity of the said licenses expired and the petitioners submitted applications for renewal of the same before the competent authority, but in-spite of deciding the applications submitted by the petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order, the respondents are taking action of seizure of shops of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the shops in question are the livelihood of the petitioners since time immemorial, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners were granted licenses to run meat shops and the validity of the same has expired and thereafter, several applications have been submitted by the petitioners for renewal of the same before the competent authority but in-spite of passing of considerable time, the applications submitted by the petitioners have not been decided, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the applications (pending, if any) for renewal of licenses expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 4. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to the respondents to decide the application(s) in a particular way. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 5. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 6. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.” 3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in the similar terms and the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2025 shall apply in the case of the present petitioner mutatis mutandis. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J SAHIL SONI /7