Petitioner challenged clarification orders regarding construction clearance and status quo. High Court exempted interference noting no material illegalities under Article 227.
Writ application dismissed; earlier orders remain operative as clarified.
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
S.B. Civil Writs No. 2425/2019
Smt Suman Sharma W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste- Brahmins, R/o Plot No. 37-A, Govinda Colony, Near Triveni Nagar Crossing, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ashish Joshi on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar Soni
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
04/02/2019
Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of order dated 20th December, 2018, made on an application instituted by the defendantrespondent(s) seeking clarification of the order dated 16th November, 2018. Grievance is also raised qua order dated 11th January, 2019, wherein the Appellate Court declined the Appeal of the petitioner affirming order 20th December, 2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application so also referring to opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Rajendra
Singth Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and
Ors. : (2005) 13 SCC 289, contended that the Courts below committed gross error while reviewing the order dated 16th
(2 of 3)
[CW-2425/2019]
November, 2018, for there is no error apparent on the face on record. Further, no error apparent on the face on record was pointed out by the respondent-defendant No.2 (Randhir Singh); hence, impugned orders dated 20th December, 2018 so also dated 11th January, 2018, made in confirmation need to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Heard and considered.
A glance of order dated 16th November, 2018, would reflect that the Trial Court while making ex-parte interim order permitted the respondent No.2, to proceed with the construction strictly in accordance with the relevant bye-laws and regulations, and therefore, in such a situation, the order of status quo, was never intended.
From a glance of impugned order dated 20th December, 2018, it is more than clear that while clarifying the order dated 16th November, 2018, on an application instituted of respondent No.2; the Trial Court made it clear that while respondent No.2, was allowed to proceed with construction strictly in accordance with the relevant bye-laws and regulations; the order to maintain status quo was never intended to restrain construction in accordance with bye-laws and regulations, and therefore, order of deletion of the phrase, to that extent, treating it to be an error apparent on the face of the record, was rightly made.
An appeal instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff against impugned order dated 20th December, 2018, was declined by the Appellate Court confirming the order on 11th January, 2019. In the case of Rajendra Singh (supra), while explaining the scope of judicial review the Apex Court of the land on a survey of earlier
(3 of 3) [CW-2425/2019]
opinions, in no uncertain terms, observed that law is well settled that power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. Further, the power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases.
Applying principle deducible from the opinion aforesaid; while the Court below made an order permitting respondent No.2 to raise construction strictly in accordance with the relevant byelaws and regulations; it could not be intended for a status quo . The Trial Court on being appraised of the ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, made the impugned order dated 20th December, 2018.
In the singular factual matrix of the case at hand, the impugned orders dated 20th December, 2018 and 11th January, 2019, suffer with no material illegalities or irregularities so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, writ application fails, and is, hereby dismissed.
Needless to observe that order dated 16th November, 2018, would be operative as clarified vide order dated 20th December, 2018.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
M.Meena/191
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Court below committed gross error while reviewing the order dated 16th November, 2018 by clarifying the intent regarding status quo and construction clearance.
Whether the impugned orders dated 20th December, 2018 and 11th January, 2019 suffer with material illegalities or irregularities warranting interference under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Ors.Referred¶24
(2005) 13 SCC 289 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt Suman Sharma W/o Shri Ashok Kumar
Jaipur Development Authority
Randhir Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
