[2025:RJ-JP:40284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15280/2025 Vasudev Son Of Shri Chokhe Lal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o At Present Shopkeeper Shop No. 8, Chopar Bus Stand, Ka- rauli Road, Hindaun District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Nagar Palika Hindaun City, Through Executive Officer, Of- fice Of Nagar Palika, Hindaun City, District Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 06/10/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned demand notice dated 24.06.2025 issued by the Municipal Council, Hindaun, by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the outstanding rent of the license of the shop in question. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present civil writ petition is similar to the case of Ram Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13385/2025 decided on 11.09.2025, whereby the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement was executed between the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:40284] (2 of 3) [CW-15280/2025] and the respondent with certain terms and condi- tions for construction of the subject premises and the premises were constructed accordingly in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 02.12.1983. Counsel submits that on 02.09.2006 similar notice was issued to the petitioner, which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City. The suit filed by the petitioner was partly decreed vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 and the notice dated 02.09.2006 was declared as void and a di- rection was issued to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law on the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agree- ment. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Civil Court was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner in the first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Hindaun and in the second appeal before this Court. Now, again the same notice has been issued to the petitioner on 18.06.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3.Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4.Without entering into the controversy involved in the petition, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by granting lib- erty to the petitioner to file a detailed comprehen- sive representation along with all relevant docu- ments before the respondent. 5.In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the respondent to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably [2025:RJ-JP:40284] (3 of 3) [CW-15280/2025] within a period of three weeks thereafter by pass- ing a reasoned and speaking order. 6.For a period of five weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. 7.With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dis- posed of. 8.Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to the respondent/non-petitioner to decide the rep- resentation of the petitioner in a particular manner. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.” 3. In view of the above, the present civil writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the same terms mutatis mutandis. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J AVINASH GULERIA /6