Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/O Shri P.P. Bidyasar Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:14538-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

(1) D. B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 149/2025

¶4

In

¶5

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7446/2009

¶6

Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/o Shri P.P. Bidyasar, Resident of B-2/444, Chitrakut, Jaipur-302021, through her Power of Attorney Shri P.P. Bidyasar, aged about 74 years Son of Shri Gyanendra Singh, Resident of B-2/444, Chitrakut, Jaipur-302021.

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur.

¶11

Dy. Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle-I, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶12

The Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Circle-I, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connected With

¶15

D. B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 150/2025

¶16

In

¶17

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2009

¶18

Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/o Shri P.P. Bidyasar, Resident Of B-2/444, Chitrakut, Jaipur-302021, Through Her Power Of Attorney Shri P.p. Bidyasar, Aged About 74 Years Son Of Shri Gyanendra Singh, Resident Of B-2/444, Chitrakut, Jaipur-302021

¶19

----Appellant

¶20

Versus

¶21

State of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Urban Development And Housing Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶22

Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Housing Commissioner, Rajasthan Housing Board, Circle-I, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

¶23

The Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Circle-I, Jaipur.

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

[2025:RJ-JP:14538-DB]

¶26

[SAW-149/2025]

¶27

2025:RJ-JP:14538-DB]		(2 of 3) [SAW-149/
For Appellant	:	Mr. Virendra Lodha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ankit Rathore Advocate.
For Respondents	:	Mr. Ajay Shukla Advocate with Mr. Raghav Sharma Advocate. Mr. P.C. Sharma Advocate.

¶28

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶29

Judgment

¶30

01/04/2025

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

We find that the learned Single Judge has vacated interim order on the ground of non-compliance of interim order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7446/2009.

¶33

Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the interim order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2009 was confirmed by the Court as the application for vacating stay order was not pressed. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the subsequent petition, i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7446/2009 was filed because during pendency of first petition, a revised notice was issued demanding same amount in respect of which, there was restraint order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2009. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that instead of vacating the interim order which remained pending since 2009, learned Single Judge ought to have decided the writ petitions on their own merits.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that though there was a confirmed interim order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2009, in a subsequent petition, i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶35

[2025:RJ-JP:14538-DB]

¶36

[SAW-149/2025]

¶37

(3 of 3)

¶38

No. 7446/2009, the interim order was passed on 03.07.2009 extending time for payment of the balance amount. The appellant failed to deposit this amount, therefore, learned Single Judge vacated not only interim order, but directed the case to be listed for final hearing.

¶39

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by vacating interim order which was passed way back in the year 2009. Writ petitions were ripe for hearing.

¶40

As to what would be the effect of not making payment pursuant to revised demand (which was subject matter of challenge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7446/2009), in the light of confirmation of order of stay passed on 16.04.2014 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2009, requires consideration. This aspect may be taken into consideration while exercising discretionary jurisdiction at the time of final hearing of the petitions.

¶41

In view of above, order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Interim order stands restored. 8. Since the writ petitions have remained pending since 2009, we request learned Single Judge to finally dispose off the petitions, if possible, in the month of May, 2025 itself. 9. Appeals are, accordingly, allowed. 10. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of D. B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 150/2025.

¶42

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶43

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶44

MANOJ NARWANI-Divya /21 & 24

Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/O Shri P.P. Bidyasar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/O Shri P.P. Bidyasar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Subhash Chandra Tyagi, S/O Late Chiranji Lal Sharma Vs Union of India

Dr. Savita Bidyasar C/O Shri P.P. Bidyasar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamta Sharma W/O Shri Ramavtar Sharma Vs Rajasthan State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission