Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sita Ram Sharma v. the Director, Local Self Government Department

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2021SAW/576/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the D.B. Special Appeal regarding plaintiff impleadment, holding that a joint petition with the appellant would suffice to seek release of seized shop no.3 held by an additional party.

What did the court decide?

Director and Nagar Nigam to release seized shop no.3 of Ms. Sanju Soni without including her as a respondent in the main petition.

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sita Ram… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 576/2020

¶3

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son Of Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Mishra Niwas, Tikki Wallo Ka Mohalla, Near Post Office, Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Director, Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Office At G-3 Rajmahal Residential Area, C- Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

The Nagar Nigam Through Its Mayor, Office Pandit Dindayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

The Nagar Nigam Through Its Deputy Commissioner, Office At Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶9

Anil Kumar Dusad Son Of Shri Kamla Prasad Dusad, Resident Of Jain Mohalla, Kasba Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

Smt. Sanju Soni Wife Of Shri Rakesh Soni, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Sanganer Setu Road Near Flyover, In Front Of Jali Bageechi, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain with Mr. Ankit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶14

18/11/2021

¶15

Counsel for Ms. Sanju Soni, who had applied for being impleaded as a party and whose application has been allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order, stated that she is

¶16

(2 of 2) [SAW-576/2020]

¶17

the owner of shop no.3. Since on a complaint filed by the appellant original petitioner, the authorities have seized shops No.3 and 4 both, she had applied for being joined as party.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant original petitioner stated that he has no complaint about shop no.3. His complaint is confined only to shop no.4. He would therefore have no objection if the seizure of shop no.3 is lifted by the authorities.

¶19

In that view of the matter, we do not want to prolong this appeal. Let Ms. Sanju Soni produce this order before the authorities and seek release of the seizure of shop no.3. It would therefore be not necessary to include her as the respondent in the main petition. Let the petition progress in accordance with law between the petitioner and the respondent as originally joined by the petitioner.

¶20

It is clarified that the order of status quo passed by the learned Single Judge would not cover shop no.3 of Ms. Sanju Soni. With this directions, the appeal is disposed of.

¶21

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶22

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶23

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL /BM GANDHI/28

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sita Ram Sharma v. the Director, Local Self Government Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Son of Sita Ram Sharma v. the Director, Local Self Government Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

State of Rajasthan Vs Lok Manya Tilak College

Rajasthan Housing Board Vs Sunil Chaturvedi S/O Shri Ramesh Chand

Bhawani Shankar Son of Shri Jhabar Mal Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Gopi Ram Balai S/O Shri Shrawan Lal Balai

Sub Divisional Officer Vs Jagdish Prasad Sanwaria S/O Amilal