Petitioner JDA sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Court permitted withdrawal over objection of newly added respondent, noting their challenge was to a different petition. Petition dismissed as withdrawn; stay applications dismissed.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn; stay applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.839/ 2009
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur-Petitioner
Versus
Shri Sudhir Kumar & Ors.-Respondents.
Date of Order :: 09/10/2015
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Mr. Rinesh Gupta for Mr. A.K. Gupta, Mr. C.P. Sharma for Mr. Mahendra Goyal, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mr. Siddharth Bapna for Mr. Anil Mehta, for the respondent No.1. Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, for the respondent No.3. Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj for Mr. Prem Krishan Sharma, for the respondent No.4.
ORDER
BY THE COURT :
The learned counsel for the petitioner-JDA seeks permission to withdraw the present petition in view of the application being No.19070/ 2015.
The learned counsel Mr. Siddharth Bapna appears for the respondent No.1. The learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari appears for the respondent No.3. They have no objection, if the petition is permitted to be withdrawn. The learned counsel Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj appearing for the newly added respondent No.4 submits that the present petition may not be permitted to be withdrawn till the final decision in CWP No.384/ 2004 and CWP No.6910/ 2014. The said objection raised by the learned counsel Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj cannot be accepted. Inasmuch as the respondent No.3 has already filed substantive petition, challenging the cancellation of their allotment in respect of the land, which is not the subject matter of the present petition. The respondent No.4 was also not party to the proceedings before the JDA Appellate Tribunal.
In view of the above, the petitioner-JDA is permitted to withdraw the present petition, as prayed for. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. By this order, the stay application and other pending application, if any also stand dismissed.
(Bela M. Trivedi) J.
PA81 “ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” Sanjay Solanki Personal Assistant
Sanjay Solanki
Jaipur Development Authority
Sudhir Kumar
Shri Prem Krishan Sharma
Respondent No.4
Bela M. Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
