Rajdarbar Pinkcity Developments Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 928/2026

Rajdarbar Pinkcity Developments Private Limited, Ff-107, Ansal Fortune Arcade, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh- 201301, Through Its Authorised Representative.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Secretariat, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005

¶9

District Collector And Magistrate, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302016.

¶10

Jaipur Development Authority, Through The Commissioner, Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004

¶11

Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Greater), Through The Commissioner, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Tonk Rd, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015

¶12

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through The Executive Engineer, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302016

¶13

Principal Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005

¶14

Janak, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶15

Suvastra Nidhi, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶16

Colormaker Salon, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶17

Urban Rasoi, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer,

(2 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

[CW-928/2026]

District Jaipur - 302026

¶22

Shree Ram Furniture And Interiors, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶23

Hair Style And Unisex Salon, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶24

DS Lady Trends And Boutique, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶25

Dr. Jay’s, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶26

DS Beauty Lounge, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶27

Leel Market, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026

¶28

Panasonic, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026, District Jaipur - 302026

¶29

Lakshmi Mom, Through Its Authorised Signatory, Ring Road, Near Patwar Circle, Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur - 302026, District Jaipur - 302026

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Daksh Kadian through VC and Mr. Ashish Guwalani

¶32

For Respondent(s) :

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶34

Order

¶35

04/02/2026

¶36

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner through Video Conferencing, after arguing at some

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

[CW-928/2026]

(3 of 6)

length, has made a limited prayer that the respondents authorities may be directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner on 10.10.2025, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 with the file.

¶41

The learned Senior Advocate further submits that the petitioner surrendered the land under the provisions of Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and the said land lies with the Jaipur Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’), but certain encroachments have been made on the land in question.

¶42

Heard and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record.

¶43

As regard the encroachment made by the encroachers over the Government Land, which was surrendered by the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents authorities to remove the encroachment over that land, which is enclosed as Annexure-4 with the file.

¶44

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Pawan Meena Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1665/2024) decided on 02.02.2024 has observed as under:-

¶45

“ 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

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

[CW-928/2026]

(4 of 6)

citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life.

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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

(5 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

[CW-928/2026]

employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely.

¶57

Even otherwise, the State must takeaway/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.

¶58

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

¶59

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.

¶60

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 overburdened courts.

¶61

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 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.”

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5165]

[CW-928/2026]

In view of the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Pawan Meena (supra) , the respondents authorities are under an obligation to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶66

In view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Pawan Meena (supra) , the petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation to the concerned competent authority, as regards the grievances raised in the present writ petition, who shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.

¶67

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶68

Stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶69

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶70

ARTI SHARMA /21

Rajdarbar Pinkcity Developments Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdarbar Pinkcity Developments Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jain Irrigation System Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaideep Sharma @ Golu Sharma S/O Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohit Smariya, S/O Mukesh Samariya Vs University of Rajasthan

Ram Niwas Gupta Vs Raj. Financial Corporation

Nivali Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepshikha Sharma W/O Late Shri Rajesh Ahujaaged Vs Jaipur Municipal Corporation Greater, Jaipur