Disposed

Mohammad Shakir S/O Mohammad Tarif v. Municipal Corporation Kota (North)

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2025CW/12202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a seizure order and sought enforcement of a prior single bench order directing the respondent to decide license renewal applications within four weeks. The court directed the respondent to comply with the earlier order and decide the pending representations expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to decide the petitioners' representation dated 24.06.2025 seeking renewal of license within four weeks by a reasoned and speaking order, in compliance with the order dated 30.

Mohammad Shakir S/O Mohammad Tarif Vs Municipal… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12202/2025

¶3

Mohammad Shakir S/o Mohammad Tarif, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kabadiyo Ki Masjid Ke Paas Shripura Kota Rajasthan.

¶4

Mohammad Ayyub S/o Mohammad Yakub, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Bakra Mandi, Sazidewra, Kota City Distrcit Kota Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Municipal Corporation Kota (North), Through Its Commissioner, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Dusshera Maidan, Kota.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kaswa For Respondent(s) :

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

14/08/2025

¶13

The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:

¶14

“i) The respondent may kindly be directed to quash and set aside the impugned seizing orders dated 07.05.2025.

¶15

ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to decide the representations/applications of the Petitioners in accordance with the directions issued in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 8274/2025 titled as "Nadeem Ansari & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors." forthwith.

¶16

iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to de-

¶17

(2 of 3) [CW-12202/2025]

¶18

seal/de-seize the Meat Shops of the petitioners seized on 07.05.2025.

¶19

iv) Any other order which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioners along with cost of writ petition.”

¶20

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned seizure order dated 07.05.2025, by which the meet shop of the petitioner has been seized by the respondents. Counsel submits that the aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8274/2025 before this Court and the said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2025, by which a direction was issued to the respondents to decide the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of license expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Counsel submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 30.05.2025, the petitioners submitted representation in the office of the respondents on 24.06.2025, but in-spite of passing of considerable time, till date, the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court has not been complied by the petitioner seeking renewal of licence has not been decided, hence, the petitioners approached this Court seeking directions for implementation of the order dated 30.05.2025.

¶21

In the considered opinion of this Court the remedy available to the petitioners was to file a contempt petition. In case, any non-compliance is there on the part of the

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CW-12202/2025]

¶24

respondents, the petitioners are not supposed to approach this Court again with regard to the same prayer, which has already been granted in there favour in the earlier round of litigation.

¶25

Instead of relegating the petitioners with the remedy of filing contempt petition at this state, this petition is disposed of with the directions to the respondent to comply with the order dated 30.05.2025 and decide the application/representation dated 24.06.2025 submitted by the petitioners seeking renewal of licence expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶26

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

KuD/17

Mohammad Shakir S/O Mohammad Tarif v. Municipal Corporation Kota (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shakir S/O Mohammad Tarif v. Municipal Corporation Kota (North)

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

Goyal Fashions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Trade Mark

Ramlal and Anr. Vs B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Vimal Kumar Toshniwal S/O. Sh. Ramesh Chand Toshniwal Vs the Registrar of Trade Mark

Vimal Todi S/O Late Sh. G.D. Todi Vs Chandra Prakash Paliwal S/O Mahant Late Sh. Ganeshram Paliwal

Caritas Infra Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Caritas Infra Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.