[2026:RJ-JP:14266] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6150/2026 Thapar Concast Limited, Registered Office At B-47, Phase-7, Fokal Point, Ludhiana (Punjab) Through Authorized Signatory. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302004 2. Chairman, RIICO Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur- 302005 3. Managing Director, RIICO Ltd. Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur-302005 4. Unit In-Charge RIICO, Unit-II, Riico Rest House Road, Riico Chowk, Bhiwadi, District Alwar (Rajasthan) 301019 5. Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation (RIICO), Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tapukda, District Khairtal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 6. Vijay Kaushik S/o Shri Rajbal Kaushik, R/o 76, Lajpat Nagar, Gurugram (Haryana). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakshit Jain for Mr. Jitendra Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 07/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the record pertaining to Plot No. SP2-2 and examine the same and further may be pleased to:- [2026:RJ-JP:14266] (2 of 3) [CW-6150/2026] i. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof quash and set aside order dated 17.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2, order dated 11.10.2023 issued by Respondent No. 3 and order dated 05.07.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4, in the interest of justice. ii. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to allow the application filed by the Petitioner under Rule 24 (3) for restoration of Plot No. SP2-2 and directing the Respondents to restore lease of Plot No. SP2-2 of payment the of Petitioner, subject to complete amount payable for condoning the default in terms of order dated 30.06.2022 as well as by extending the benefit of amnesty scheme 2023 to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice; iii. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof declaring the action of the Respondents in cancelling the allotment and lease deed issued in favour of Petitioner along with all consequential acts as illegal and arbitrary. iv. issue appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof directing the respondents to dated representation decide the 14.2.2026 by speaking order after considering the bonafide offer of petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount as per order dated 30.6.2022 by applying provisions of Amnesty Scheme, 2023 along with any other rebate, exemption or benefits. v. any other order or relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the humble Petitioner, in the interest of justice. vi. cost of writ petition may be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Mr. Peush Nag and Mr. Avinash Kumbhaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, have confined their submissions to the limited extent that for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance, it has submitted a representation before respondent No.2 – Chairman, RIICO, on 14.02.2026 (Annexure-36), and prays that the same be considered and decided by respondent No.2 strictly in accordance with law in a time bound manner. [2026:RJ-JP:14266] (3 of 3) [CW-6150/2026] 3. Considering the limited submission so made and without delving into the merits of the matter, respondent No.2 – Chairman, RIICO, is directed to decide the representation dated 14.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again if the grievance of the petitioner still survives. 4. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 6. Needless to say, this order has been passed only to decide the petitioner’s representation strictly in accordance with law and in no manner is to be construed as a direction to decide the said representation in a particular manner. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /10