Disposed

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2020CW/9429/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to decide the pending appeal under the RTPP Act 2012 before September 13, 2020, with a speaking order. The court noted that subsequent LOI or work orders would be subject to the appeal's decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide the appeal and pass a speaking order before September 13, 2020; any LOI issued is subject to the appeal's decision.

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited Vs State of… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9429/2020

¶3

M/s. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited, Official Address 202/203, Shyamak Complex, Behind Kamdhenu Complex, Polytechnic, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380015. Through Its Director Sh. Poojan Hitesh Bhai Shah

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Urban Development And Housing Department, Food Building, Secretariat, Jaipur -302005 (Rajasthan). Through Secretary.

¶7

First Appellate Authority, Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota Cad Colony, Dadabari, Kota, Rajasthan 324009.

¶8

Executive Engineer (Water), Urban Improvement Trust, Cad Colony, Dadabari, Kota, Rajasthan 324009.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Archit Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/09/2020

¶14

Learned Additional Advocate General appears and submits that the petitioner said to have filed an appeal on 6.8.2020 and certain defects, which were removed on 12.8.2020 and 30 days period is provided for deciding an appeal in terms of Section 38(3) of RTPP Act 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and therefore, the learned counsel submits that the respondents be allowed to decide the appeal itself within the time prescribed under the Act.

¶15

[CW-9429/2020]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been disqualified illegally and LOI is going to be issued. The petitioner has suffered a huge loss, upon which, the learned counsel appearing for the State submits that LOI has already been issued.

¶18

I have considered the submissions.

¶19

Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 38 of the RTPP Act 2012, it is directed that the respondents shall decide the appeal positively before 13^th September, 2020 and pass a speaking order after giving fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the petitioner shall be free to challenge the order passed in the appeal, if it is found adverse to them in second appeal.

¶20

Keeping in view the statement of learned counsel for the State that LOI has been issued to the other respondents, it is observed that if any LOI or any work order is issued, the same would be subject to the decision of the appeals and any further proceedings.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of as per above directions.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶23

Anu /13

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lavkesh S/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs Rameshwar Goswami Son of Shri Chhotulal

Pappu Ram Raiger S/O Shri Chander Raiger Vs the State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Joshi S/O Shri Ashok Joshi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Aquafil Polymers Company Pvt. Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal Mahich Vs State of Raj and Ors.