Dismissed

Ghanshyam Ojha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 May 2023CW/7316/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an S.B. Civil Writ Petition filed by the Mayor of Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur in his private capacity against an order disposing of government assets. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition and stay application.

Ghanshyam Ojha Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7316/2019

¶3

Ghanshyam Ojha S/o Shri Late Shri Ram Pal Ojha, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Ramayan Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Department Jaipur.

¶8

Jain Family Trust, Through Its Chief Trustee Ramesh Parekh S/o Late Shri Hasti Mal Parekh, By Caste Jain, Resident Of B-1, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Chandraveer Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	CS Kotwani
	Mr.	Sunil Beniwal, AAG
	Mr.	Hemant Ballani

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

01/05/2023

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following

¶15

prayers:-

¶16

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed;

¶17

I) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the order impugned dated 16.4.2019 (Annexure-11) passed by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶18

II) During pendency of the writ petition, if any order is passed or any action is taken against the petitioner, prejudicial to his interest, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶19

III) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

[CW-7316/2019]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

IV) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was elected as Mayor of Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur and it has been averred in the writ petition that as per Section 48 (c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act of 2009), the petitioner has following functions to discharge:

¶24

The relevant portion of Section 48 (c) of the Act of 2009 is reproduced as under:

¶25

“ (a)….. (b)….

¶26

“(c) Watch over the financial and executive Municipal administration of the Municipality; (d)…..”

¶27

The petitioner has assailed the validity and legality of the order dated 16.4.2019 passed by the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Department by which, a plot was auctioned by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur i.e. predecessor of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur on 18.09.1982 under the provisions of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban land Rules, 1974).

¶28

It has been averred that the auction purchaser did not deposit 3/4 amount from last 36 years and it was prayed that it may be directed to deposit 3/4 amount with interest and penalty. 5. The plot in question, which was allotted to the respondent No.3 is situated on the main road of Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur admeasuring 10795.7 square feet.

¶29

(3 of 3) [CW-7316/2019]

¶30

The petitioner in the capacity of Mayor directed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to file a case in the matter before the Competent Court vide letter dated 17.05.2019 and no action whatsoever in regard to the same was taken and the petitioner preferred this writ petition in private capacity.

¶31

The respondent No. 3 has raised an objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition in the private capacity and the impugned order dated 16.4.2019 ( Annex.-11 ) was passed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the respondent No. 3, and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order dated 16.4.2019.

¶32

This Court finds that the petitioner’s right are not infringed or violated by passing of the impugned order dated 16.4.2019 and, therefore, on this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. However, had the petitioner preferred the writ petition in the official capacity while relying upon Section 48 (c) of the Act of 2009, then, it would have been a different situation as the point of locus would have stood satisfied.

¶33

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. 10. Stay application is also dismissed.

¶34

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶35

surabhii/45-

Ghanshyam Ojha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Ojha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S D.J. Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan

Gempar Ram @ Chikku Vs State of Rajasthan

Bholu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandan Prakash Borana Vs State of Rajasthan

Marwar Kesari Shishan Sansthan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanavi Agro Private Ltd.and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.