Dismissed

Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Mar 2022WMAP/193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this D.B. Writ Misc Application, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the application as no case for interference was made out since the dispute was settled between parties, rendering adjudication unnecessary. The court clarified that a PIL is not withdrawable by parties once adjudication begins.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted as the application was dismissed for no case made out.

Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[WMAP-193/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 193/2021

Gulab Singh and Ors.

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

¶9

----Respondents Oma Ram Banjara S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chotila, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali. ----Applicant

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

29/03/2022

¶14

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a public interest litigation cannot be withdrawn by either of the parties once the adjudication begins before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the right of the parties to enter into a private settlement regarding the dispute in question, while the public interest litigation is being adjudicated, is not permissible in law.

¶16

Learned counsel has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 810 . Para 3 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[WMAP-193/2021]

¶19

“3. The said explanation, if we allow ourselves to say so, is absolutely unnecessary. The affidavit has been sworn by one Ms Bhakti Pasrija who is the General Secretary of the Association. It is a public interest litigation meant for canvassing the cause for gender equality, that is perception of Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Association. The thrust of the matter is whether women within the age group of 10 to 50 should be allowed to enter into Sabarimala Temple or not has to be debated in due course when the matter is taken up for hearing by this Court. Hearing in a court of law is not dependent especially in a public interest litigation by any person. Once the public interest litigation is entertained by this Court taking the lis into consideration, even if the President of the Association desires to withdraw the same, this Court may decline to grant that permission. That apart, as we find, there are other petitioners.”

¶20

Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 16 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, particularly clause 6, which provides that in respect of a land acquired or held for a public purpose or a work of public utility, Khatedari rights cannot be given by the State.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Khatedari rights of the land of way, which could not have been given, have been conferred upon the private parties.

¶22

This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant, is of the firm opinion that it was the prerogative of this Hon’ble Court whether to adjudicate the dispute or not, and once the parties submitted before the Court that their dispute regarding the public interest or public way has been settled between them, this Court need not have continued the adjudication. The only order passed was to the effect that once the parties stood at a settlement

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[WMAP-193/2021]

¶25

amongst themselves, for which, neither the Court was required to accept or not to accept, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶26

The writ petition has not been adjudicated on merits and in case, any action of the parties in the writ petition prejudices the present petitioner, it shall of course be open to him to take appropriate legal recourse, but it is not appropriate for the applicant to seek any review of the order, which does not carry any adversity for any of the parties.

¶27

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the present application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶29

7-Zeeshan

Gulab Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishori Lal Verma Vs Great Value Developersprivate Limited

Anil Goliya Vs State

Anil Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India

Kailash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India

Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan