Writ petition challenging the status of amended hotel byelaws was disposed of without deciding on merits, as fees had been revised; hoteliers were told to file a fresh petition if aggrieved by the revision.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/2002
Hotel Association of Jaipur through its Secretary Shri R.K. Parekh, son of Late Shri Ratan Chandji, aged about 47 years, R/o 22, Acharol House, Civil Lines, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sarvesh Jain For Respondent(s) : Shri Rajendra Prasad, Addl. Advocate General with Shri Atul Singh Chauhan, Shri Abhishek Sharma for Shri Manish Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
20/11/2018
This writ petition has been filed by Hotel Association of Jaipur through its Secretary Shri R.K. Parekh challenging the amendment in the Byelaws by notification dated 11.12.1996 published in the gazette of the State Government dated 26.12.1996.
Grievance that has been raised by the Hotel Association is that by the aforesaid notification, the State Government has granted sanction to the amended Byelaws submitted by Jaipur Nagar Nigam, but the amended Byelaws have been prescribed as
(2 of 3)
[CW-660/2002]
proposed Byelaws and the title given thereunder also indicates the proposed Byelaws.
Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the word "proposed" in para 1 of the Byelaws submitted by the respondents has been deleted by notification dated 30.4.2002. According to him, the interim order passed by this Court initially on 24.1.2002 was vacated by order of this Court by order dated 6.5.2004.
Shri Sarvesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently petitioner filed second stay petition.
Perusal of the order of this Court dated 19.9.2006 indicates that the stay petition was disposed of with direction that interim order as modified by order of this Court dated 6.5.2004 shall remain operative. In fact, the order dated 6.5.2004 is not the order modifying the earlier order, however, this order has vacated the stay order earlier passed on 24.1.2002. Even the second stay application was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2006.
Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner claims to be Association of the hoteliers of the Jaipur City with the list of its members being produced at Schedule-A, but since all the hoteliers are paying regular revised fee, and since there was no stay in the meanwhile, the fee might have been further revised upwards by order dated 31.01.2017.
In view of the above fact, we do not propose to decide the petition on merits. However, it would be open to the hoteliers that if they are aggrieved by the revised licence fee, which has been
(3 of 3)
[CW-660/2002]
increased multi times, to challenge the same in a duly constituted
fresh writ petition.
With that liberty, the petition is disposed of.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
RS/44
Hotel Association of Jaipur
State of Rajasthan
Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
