[2025:RJ-JP:6052] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2352/2025 Mrs. Savitri Devi Jaiswal W/o Late Shri Ramswaroop Jaiswal, R/o Jaiswal Bhawan, Sainthal Road, Near Durga Mandir, Ward No. 2, Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Managing Director, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Unit Head, Dausa-Unit, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, Udyog Bhawan Premises, Collectorate Circle Bypass Road, Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia with Mr. Karan Sehgal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 12/02/2025 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents-RIICO to decide her application(s)/representation(s) for extension of time for commencement of construction/production. The relevant facts in brief are that a commercial plot No.SP-2 admeasuring 2221 square meters was allotted by the respondents to the petitioner in industrial area, Dausa vide lease deed dated [2025:RJ-JP:6052] (2 of 4) [CW-2352/2025] 18.12.2015 in the name of M/s Ramswaroop Jaiswal and party. It is averred that on account of reasons beyond her control, she could not start construction/production within the time prescribed under lease deed but, her request for extension of time through various letters/representations dated 28.12.2023, 01.03.2024, 04.03.2024, 12.06.2024 and 11.09.2024 are being paid no heed by the respondents- RIICO. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-RIICO be directed to take a conscious decision upon her request for extension of time for construction/production. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:2024 (4) WLC 486 (Raj.), held as under:- “Considering the arguments advanced above, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the State, by constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State, whilst exercising governance over it’s citizens, is expected to protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-being, based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life. With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise. At the same time, it is noted that the writ court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, employs a discretionary approach, where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy, the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority, better equipped with experts or otherwise, to entertain the dispute. Resultantly, in service matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself, being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court. [2025:RJ-JP:6052] (3 of 4) [CW-2352/2025] Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take- away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on [2025:RJ-JP:6052] (4 of 4) [CW-2352/2025] 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. Thus, it was held in the aforesaid case that it is incumbent upon the State and its functionaries to take a conscious decision upon the representation filed by an applicant within a period of thirty days. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents-RIICO to pass a reasoned and speaking order on letter(s)/representation(s) filed by the petitioner for extension of time for construction/production within a period of four weeks’ from the date of submission of a copy of this order with its communication to her. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/46