Disposed

Dwarka Prasad Son of Shrif Ramjilal Chhipi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2025CW/13555/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a municipal notice demanding outstanding rent. Court abstained from resolving merits, granting liberty to file a representation, stayed coercive action for five weeks, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation; respondent to decide within three weeks; coercive action stayed for five weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Dwarka Prasad Son of Shrif Ramjilal Chhipi Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36901]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13555/2025

¶4

Dwarka Prasad Son Of Shrif Ramjilal Chhipi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o At Present Shopkeeper Shop No. 7, Chopar Bus Stand, Karuali Road, Hindaun District Karauli.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Nagar Palika Hindaun City, Through Executive Officer, Office Of Nagar Palika, Hindaun City, District Karauli.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Shukla For Respondent(s) :

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

11/09/2025

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned demand notice dated 18.06.2025 issued by the Municipal Council, Hindaun, by which the petitioner has been directed to deposit the outstanding rent of the license of the shop in question.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent with certain terms and conditions for construction of the subject premises and the premises were constructed accordingly in terms of the aforesaid agreement dated 02.12.1983. Counsel submits that on 02.09.2006 similar notice was issued to the petitioner, which was assailed by the

[2025:RJ-JP:36901]

[CW-13555/2025]

(2 of 3)

petitioner by way of filing a civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hindaun City. The suit filed by the petitioner was partly decreed vide judgment dated 04.01.2010 and the notice dated 02.09.2006 was declared as void and a direction was issued to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law on the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 04.01.2010 passed by the Civil Court was unsuccessfully assailed by the petitioner in the first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Hindaun and in the second appeal before this Court. Now, again the same notice has been issued to the petitioner on 18.06.2025, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Without entering into the controversy involved in the petition, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed comprehensive representation along with all relevant documents before the respondent.

¶21

In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today, it is expected from the respondent to decide the same expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶22

(3 of 3) [CW-13555/2025]

¶23

[2025:RJ-JP:36901]

¶24

For a period of five weeks, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not issued any order/direction to the respondent/non-petitioner to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular manner. They would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

KuD/6

Dwarka Prasad Son of Shrif Ramjilal Chhipi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarka Prasad Son of Shrif Ramjilal Chhipi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ent Bhatta Sangh Bharatpur Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Agarwal S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad Agarwal Vs Shri Gopal Singh Chauhan S/O Shri Chandrapal Singh Chauhan

Rama Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Mohd Hanif S/O Sh. Razzaq Vs State of Rajasthan

Chanchal W/O Rajat Sharma Vs Au Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Edna Rai D/O Lallbahadur Rai Vs Hdfc Bank