Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal v. Shri Bhaskar a. Sawant, Ias, Principal Secretary

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2023CCP/162/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposes contempt petition. Rejects impleadment. Directs respondent to complete encroachment proceedings within two months. Contempt proceedings disposed with liberty to revive if directions not followed.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment rejected. Proceedings to be concluded within two months. Liberty to revive contempt petition if directions not followed.

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

( 2023:RJ-JP:15706-DB )

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 162/2019

¶4

¶5

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 7700/2017

¶6

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Plot No. 7, Plot No. 7 (West Part) Devi Path Kanota Bagh, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Bhaskar A. Sawant, IAS, Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Shri Vishnu Lata, Mayor, Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶11

Shri Vijay Pal Singh, IAS, Commissioner Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶12

Shri T. Ravikant, IAS, Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan Indira Circle Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶13

Shri Archana Singh, IAS, Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.

¶14

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Govt. Of Raj. Secretariat Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Anoop Pareek, Advocate with Mr. Pranav Pareek, Advocate Mr. Vimal Chand Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Kumar Tailor, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, Advocate
		Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Advocate

¶17

[CCP-162/2019]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶20

Judgment / Order

¶21

25/07/2023

¶22

There is an application by the proposed applicants praying for impleadment as party. Since, we are going to finally dispose off the contempt petition, we are not inclined to allow any other party to be impleaded.

¶23

Therefore, the application is rejected.

¶24

We find that the order was passed by this Court way back in the year 2017 and the respondent-authority is obliged under the law to comply with the directions of the Court and to ensure that the directions of the Court are complied with.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation would submit that after the directions were issued by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ (PIL) Petition No. 7700/2017 on 27.07.2017, the Corporation determined the width of the road and, thereafter, notices were issued to those who were found to have encroached upon the width of the road. He would further submit that thereafter, certain dispute arose and two persons, who are alleged to be encroachers, filed writ petition which was dismissed against which writ appeal was filed which has been decided by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2023, wherein, this Court has directed the Corporation to decide the objections raised.

¶26

We find that though some of the persons had raised objection and also filed writ petition before this Court, it is not that everyone against whom notices were issued approached the Court or was protected by any interim order.

¶27

(3 of 3) [CCP-162/2019]

¶28

There was no justification on the part of the Corporation in staying proceedings merely because one or two or those who were issued notices had approached the Court of law. Be that as it may, since in the writ appeal filed by two such namely Prem Narain Gupta and Jugal Kishore Gupta, an order has been passed by this Court today itself directing the Corporation to decide objection which include the issue with regard to width of the road also, the Corporation and its authorities would be obliged to proceed further in the matter expeditiously. The proceedings, pursuant to issuance of notice to various persons, would be brought to its logical conclusion within a period of two months from the date of decision on the objection made by Prem Narain Gupta and Jugal Kishore Gupta. If the proceedings are not brought to the conclusion one way or the other, the appellants would be at liberty to revive this contempt petition.

¶29

This contempt petition, at this stage, is disposed off with liberty to revive.

¶30

Rule stands discharged.

¶31

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶32

Mohita /25

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal v. Shri Bhaskar a. Sawant, Ias, Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary S/O Shri Seeta Ram Khandelwal v. Shri Bhaskar a. Sawant, Ias, Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Manish Jhalani S/O Shri Ravindra Jhalani

Roshan Singh (Constable No. 4896) S/O Shri Jeevan Singh, Vs Shri M.L. Lathar

Ram Datt Sharma Son of Late Shri Sahab Dayal Sharma, Vs Shri Gaurav Goyal

Prem Narain Gupta Son of Shri Hari Narain Gupta Vs Jaipur Nagar Nigam

Hemraj S/O Shri Ram Narayan Vs Shri Yag Mtira Singh Dev Commissioner Jaipur Municipal Corporation

Rajendra Sharma S/O Shri Shyam Prakash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan