Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Panwar vs Rajasthan Tourism Development ... on 28 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:14567]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1327/2026
Anil Panwar S/o Aidan Panwar, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of
Devi Bhawan, Mount Abu, District Sirohi, (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Jaipur
Through Its Chairman, Pratyatan Bhawan, Opposite
Vidhayak Puri Police Station, M.i. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Executive Director, Rajasthan Tourism Development
Corporation, Pratyatan Bhawan, Opposite Vidhayak Puri
Police Station, M.i. Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Unit Incharge, Hotel Shikhar, Mount Abu, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Kumar Purohit
Mr. Shashank Sharma
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 28/03/2026
1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
'It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, writ order or direction the impugn order dated 21.07.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 may kindly be declared illegal and be accordingly quashed and set aside. A further direction may be issued to the respondents to grant renewal /extension of the license (Annex. 2) issued in favour of the petitioner for operating Cafeteria Sarovar at Nakki Lake, Mount Abu, District Sirohi for the period of 5 years and not to interfere in his business in any manner whatsoever.
Any other relief to which petitioner appears entitle to may kindly be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.'
2. This is the second round of litigation.
3. The petitioner, who was initially granted a license for a period of five years to run and operate a cafeteria known as Cafeteria Sarovar at Nakki Lake, Mount Abu, on 12.07.2018, was thereafter granted an extension for a further period of two years upon expiry (Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:46:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 07:15:25 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14567] (2 of 3) [CW-1327/2026] of the initial term. Being aggrieved by the denial of further extension of the license for an additional period of five years, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12926/2025 titled "Anil Panwar vs. RTDC Jaipur & Ors." before this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents to renew the license for a period of five years, taking into consideration Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Tourism, Disposal of Land and Properties by DOT/RTDC Rules, 1997, as well as the fact that the license had been renewed/extended in favour of certain similarly situated persons.
4. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, disposed of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12926/2025 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for extension of the license.
5. The competent authority, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, considered the petitioner's application seeking renewal/extension of the license for a period of five years and, vide order dated 21.07.2025 (Annexure-01), rejected the same. It was observed that the license agreement dated 11.07.2018 executed between the parties clearly stipulated that the license to run and operate the cafeteria was granted for a period of five years only. The agreement did not contain any provision regarding renewal or extension of the license. The order dated 21.07.2025 further observed that, insofar as similarly situated persons are concerned, their respective license agreements expressly contained a condition permitting renewal/extension for a further period of five years, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim parity with them.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:46:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 07:15:25 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:14567] (3 of 3) [CW-1327/2026]
6. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.07.2025, as the petitioner cannot claim extension or renewal of the license agreement to operate the cafeteria at Nakki Lake contrary to the terms and conditions stipulated in the license agreement. Merely because licenses granted in favour of certain individuals, namely Vimla Devi and Narendra Kumar, were extended, the petitioner cannot claim parity with them. Firstly, the impugned order indicates that the license agreement executed in favour of Vimla Devi contained a specific provision regarding extension/renewal after completion of the initial five-year term. Secondly, the license agreements executed with Vimla Devi and Narendra Kumar have not been placed on record; therefore, the terms and conditions thereof cannot be examined by this Court.
7. Even otherwise, in the opinion of this Court, upon expiry of the period stipulated in the license agreement for operating the cafeteria at Nakki Lake, Mount Abu, the petitioner cannot claim extension or renewal of the license as a matter of right. No legal or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated in the present case. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to participate in any e-bid process initiated by the respondents for allotment of the cafeteria at Nakki Lake, Mount Abu, if so advised.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
9. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 214-divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:46:47 PM) (Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 07:15:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)