This intra-court appeal was directed against an order by the Single Judge directing the Municipal Board to remove seizure of residential quarters held by IOCL. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Single Judge's discretion did not warrant interference.
The appeal is 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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 32/2021
----Appellants
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Through General Manager (Hr), Rajasthan State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Bhawan, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Suniel Purohit |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Nishant Bora |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Judgment
15/01/2021
This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby, in the second stay petition preferred by the respondent-IOCL, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh to remove the seizure of two residential quarters seized on 17.09.2020.
By way of the writ petition pending before the learned Single Judge, respondent-IOCL has assailed the legality of order dated 31.08.2020 passed by Municipal Board, Hanumangarh, whereby, while revoking the grant, land leased out to the IOCL has been acquired.
(2 of 4)
[SAW-32/2021]
In the first instance, on the first stay petition preferred by respondent IOCl, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order in favour of IOCL in the following terms:
“In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is ordered that the Municipal Board, Hanumangarh shall not seize the land in question. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner-corporation fails to use the quarters for residential purposes within next six months, the Municipal Board, Hanumangarh is free to seize the property in question.”
According to the appellants, the interim order was passed in favour of respondent by the learned Single Judge on 17.09.2020, however, on the same day at 11:00 a.m., the disputed property had already been seized, and therefore, the question of giving effect to the interim order dated 17.09.2020 did not arise.
In these circumstances, the respondent-IOCL preferred the second stay petition seeking directions to the appellant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh to remove seizure made as aforesaid.
After due consideration of rival submissions, the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the Court having passed order dated 17.09.2020 not to seize the residential quarters of IOCL, even if the seizure was effected, the appellant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh respecting the order passed by the Court should have removed the seizure.
Accordingly, vide order under appeal dated 16.12.2020, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant-Municipal Board, Hanumangarh to release the two residential quarters seized on 17.09.2020. It is noticed that in the order dated 17.09.2020 as also in the order under appeal, a specific rider has been put that if the respondent-IOCL fails to use the quarters for residential
(3 of 4)
[SAW-32/2021]
purposes within next six months from the date of the order then Municipal Board, Hanumagarh shall be free to proceed further in the matter.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that by way of the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge has granted final relief, which may be granted, if the writ petition preferred succeeds, and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that final relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted by way of interim relief.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that by way of writ petition the petitioner has questioned cancellation of the lease, and therefore, contention raised on behalf of appellant that by way of interim order, the learned Single Judge has granted final relief, is absolutely misconceived. Learned counsel submitted that residential quarters are being used by the officers of IOCL for their residence.
It is noticed that the first stay petition as also the second stay petition are still pending consideration before the learned Single Judge.
It is always open for the appellants to file reply to the writ petition before the learned Single Judge and argue the pending stay petition. It is also open for the petitioner to make a prayer before the learned Single Judge, for modification/vacation of interim order, if so advised.
In our considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case noticed above, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the writ jurisdiction
(4 of 4)
[SAW-32/2021]
does not warrant any interference by us in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANGEET LODHA),J
14-AnilKC/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court's appellate court should interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the appeal and upholding the stay order not to seize the property.
Nagar Parishad, Hanumangarh through Commissioner
Indian Oil Corporation Limited through General Manager (Hr), Rajasthan State Office
Sangeet Lodha
Rameshwar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
