Allowed

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Oct 2017WMAP/75/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan ordered that a previous oral direction prohibiting permanent stalls near a temple during a fair be formally incorporated into the order and enforced annually regarding cleanliness and amenities.

What did the court decide?

Directing the State and respondents to adhere to directions prohibiting permanent stalls within 300 feet of temple stairs and ensuring cleanliness and amenities during the fair.

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Misc Application No. 75 / 2017

¶3

¶4

D.B.Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.2983/2017

¶5

Shri Sheetla Mataji (Kaga Tirth) Trust, Kaga Road, Jodhpur, Through Its Chairman Madho Singh Kachhwaha, S/o Shri Nathu Singh Kachhwaha, Aged About 85 Years, Occupation- Social Worker, Chairman and Ex. Member of Legislative Assembly (Rajasthan State), Resident of 34, West Patel Nagar, Circuit House Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan, Through the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Governance (Development and Housing Department), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.

¶10

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur.

¶11

The District Collector, Jodhpur.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.L.S.Jodha

¶15

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikas Choudhary on behalf of

¶16

Mr.S.S.Ladrecha, Addl.Advocate General

¶17

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶19

Order

¶20

06/10/2017

¶21

With reference to the order dated 10.03.2017, it is pointed out that the directions which were contemplated to be

¶22

(2 of 2)

¶23

[WMAP-75/2017]

¶24

incorporated in the order, and as a matter of fact were dictated in the Court, had inadvertently not been typed in the order. Indeed, this submission is correct.

¶25

The application is disposed of directing that the order dated 10.03.2017 shall be substituted as under:-

¶26

“This Court earlier had passed the following directions:-

¶27

“Having considered the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the State of Rajasthan not to permit installation of any stall, commercial or otherwise, from the stairs of the Temple to 300 ft. on the main road forwarding towards Nagori Gate. The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, shall take all necessary care with regard to cleanliness and other required hygiene in the area throughout period of the fair. The respondents shall also provide other necessary amenities viz. drinking water, medical aid, lavatories etc.”

¶28

The application is disposed of directing compliance as afore-noted for the period of the fair and this would mean each year.

¶29

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J.

¶30

skant/-

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sheetla Mataji Kaga Tirth Trust v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basti Ram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Maga Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Jeengar Vs Jalor Central Co-Op.Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bheru Lal Jat and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Chunni Lal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Chandra Prakash Vyas