Allowed

Deity of Temple Govind Devji v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2024CW/4804/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions concerning withdrawal of permission granted for establishing a HPCL retail outlet. The Director, Local Bodies had withdrawn the allotment sanction without notice or opportunity of hearing. Holding this a violation of natural justice (audi alteram partem), the court quashed both impugned orders and remitted the matter for fresh decision with hearings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19.06.2003 and 26.07.2003 quashed; matter remitted to Director, Local Bodies for fresh decision after hearings within two months.

Deity of Temple Govind Devji Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:46940]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4804/2003

¶4

Deity Of Temple Govind Devji situated at Sadar Bazar, Karauli, a Registered Public Trust, through its Trustee/Member of management committee Shri Nemi Chand Agrawal S/O Shri Revati Prasadji Agrawal, resident of Karauli.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan through the secretary, Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Local Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Collector, District Karauli.

¶10

Sub Divisional Officer, Karauli.

¶11

Tehsildar, Tehsil Karauli.

¶12

The Municipal Board through its Executive Officer, Karauli.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bharatpur.

¶14

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having its Regional office at Tel Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through its Senior Regional Manager.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

Connected With

¶17

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4733/2003

¶18

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, having its Regional Office at Tel Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Through its Senior Regional Manager Shri Manoj Kumar Vij

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

The State Of Rajasthan through Secretary Local Self Government, Secretrariat, Bhagwan Das road, C-scheme, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Directorate Local Self Government, Behind Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur.

¶22

The District Magistrate and Collector, Karauli, District Karauli. 4. The S.D.M. Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

¶23

----Respondent

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J. P. Goyal with

[2024:RJ-JP:46940]

[CW-4804/2003]

(2 of 5)

		Ms.Meenal Bhargava Ms.Sakshi Tiwari Mr.Sidharth Singh Mr.Krishna Verma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr.S. P. Rajawat, Asst.GC for Mr.G.S. Gill, AAG
		Mr.Tek Chand
		Ms.Gunjan Chawla

¶29

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶30

Order

¶31

13/11/2024

¶32

Since both the writ petitions involve a common question of facts and law, hence, at the request of the counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard together and both these petitions are being decided by this common order.

¶33

For the sake of convenience, the prayer mentioned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4804/2003 has been taken into consideration.

¶34

The instant Writ Petition No.4804/2003 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶35

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to accept and to issue a writ order or direction in the nature whereof:-

¶36

(i) to declare the order dated 19.06.2003 (Annexure-7) passed by Director Local Bodies, Jaipur and dated 26.07.2003 (Ann.8) of District collector, Karauli illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶37

(ii) to quash and set aside the order dated 19.06.2003 (Annexure-7) passed by Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur and order dated 26.07.2003 (Annexure-8) of district Collector, Karauli.

[2024:RJ-JP:46940]

[CW-4804/2003]

(3 of 5)

(iii) any other order, direction or relief in the nature whereof admissible to the petitioner may also be granted as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances with costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner."

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for establishing a retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation permission was sought and granted by all the authorities and finally, the order was passed by the Director, Local Bodies on 26.11.2002.

¶43

Learned counsel submits that without issuing any notice and granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order dated 26.11.2002 was withdrawn by the Director, Local Bodies without assigning any justified reasons and a single line of the order of withdrawal dated 19.06.2003 was passed in a cursory manner. Counsel submits that such action of the respondents has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, hence, under these circumstances, the order dated 19.06.2003 and the consequential order dated 26.07.2003 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶44

Per contra , learned counsel for the State-respondent and other counsel opposed the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the land in question belongs to mandir mafi which is a perpetual minor and the same cannot be allotted to the petitioner or anyone else for the purpose of establishment of any retail outlet. Counsel submits that assigning these reasons, the order dated 26.07.2003 was passed, hence

[2024:RJ-JP:46940]

[CW-4804/2003]

(4 of 5)

under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶49

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶50

Without going into the merits and demerits of the case and without deciding the issue whether the land in question, which belongs to a deity, can be allotted to the petitioner or not, but looking to the fact that the allotment sanction was granted by the Director, Local Bodies on 26.11.2002, for the purpose of establishment of retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the said order was withdrawn by the same Director vide order dated 19.06.2003 without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without passing any reasoned and speaking order, which has resulted into violation of principles of natural justice.

¶51

It is settled proposition of law that whenever any adverse order is passed against a person by the authority, it is expected from the said authorities to issue notice to the other side and grant him adequate opportunity to put his case, by affording him due opportunity of hearing, but herein the instant case, the aforesaid procedure has not been followed and the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice, violating the maxim of audi alteram partem.

¶52

On this count alone, the impugned order dated 19.06.2003 and as a consequence thereof, the subsequent order dated 26.07.2003 passed by the respondents stand quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Local Bodies to decide it afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all

[2024:RJ-JP:46940]

[CW-4804/2003]

(5 of 5)

the respective parties and by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The instant petitions stand allowed. 11. It goes without saying that the necessary exercise be done within a period of three months. Till three months, the interim order dated 12.09.2003 passed by this Court on the stay application filed in Writ Petition No.4804/2003 shall remain in effect and operation.

¶57

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶58

Aayush Sharma /22-23

Deity of Temple Govind Devji v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deity of Temple Govind Devji v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Kashmir Singh Andanr Vs Chimman Singh Andors

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Ghasilal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Prasad Swami S/O Shri Onkar Das Swami Vs the State of Rajasthan

Uganti and Others Vs M a C T Dausa

M/S Singh Brothers Vs R S R D Corpn

Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio Vs State of Raj and Ors.