Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 299 (RAJ)

Uma Trading Co. v. State of Others

2002-02-05

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following prayers: (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari, the non-petitioners may be directed to allot the shop No. F-II-15 to the petitioner; Petitioner (b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the allotment made by the non-petitioners being arbitrary may be quashed and set aside and fresh allotment may be made in accordance with the guideline; (c) pending the petition if any other action is being taken by the non-petitioners and any order is passed prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, the same may be quashed and set aside; (d) any other order which may deem fit in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed; (e) cost of the on petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. In none of the prayers there is a prayer challenging the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The petitioner at the time of arguments was requested to read that part of the petition where he has delineated to challenge the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. The learned counsel candidly expressed that this writ petition pertains to seeking allotment in his favour and this writ petition does not pertain to challenge of allotment of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was precisely for this reason that at the time when the writ petition was framed M/s. Raichand Mohanlal was not impleaded as party-respondent and subsequently only by an application M/s. Raichand Mohanlal has come as party-respondent. 4. This writ petition by the petitioner Was got dismissed on 13.8.1996 by the following order: "Mr. K.N. Josh, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Interim order passed by this Court shall stand vacated." 5. The present writ petition was ordered to be revived by this Court on 17.12.1998 vide following orders: In this petition in para 3 it is submitted that the present writ petition is filed to revive the earlier writ petition In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.2.1998. Interim order passed by this Court shall stand vacated." 5. The present writ petition was ordered to be revived by this Court on 17.12.1998 vide following orders: In this petition in para 3 it is submitted that the present writ petition is filed to revive the earlier writ petition In compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.2.1998. Thereafter another application Is moved stating that though the writ petition is styled as writ petition but in pith and substance is an application for revival of the writ petition No. 3063/93 in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.2.1998. In view of this factual position, it is hereby directed that the writ petition No. 3063/93 be revived and restored to Its original number and put up for further orders. The necessary consequence of this order is that the writ petition No. 1142/98 Is liable to be dismissed. It Is accordingly dismissed. 6. Thereafter, the case was listed before this Court for hearing. After hearing at the time when the judgment was being dictated, this came to the notice of the Court that the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 19.2.1998 ordered that the petitioner will be at liberty to revive its earlier writ petition challenging the order of allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal, dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7.12.1993. 7. The present writ petition was the writ petition which was dismissed as not pressed. On 13.8.1996 it was observed in the Court after the case was listed for mention that this is not the writ petition which has been revived as per the order of Division Bench. The parties were permitted to seek appropriate directions from the Division Bench. The parties made an application before the Division Bench and on an application being made by the parties before the Division Bench, an order was passed by the Division Bench on 30.11.1999 that in the order passed by it earlier the date 7.12.1993 should be read as 13.8.1996. 8. Thus, the sequence of the events of the orders obtained by the petitioner quoted hereinabove will show that the present writ petition was sought to be revived by the petitioner In terms of the orders of the Division Bench. The petitioner has desired to challenge the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. 8. Thus, the sequence of the events of the orders obtained by the petitioner quoted hereinabove will show that the present writ petition was sought to be revived by the petitioner In terms of the orders of the Division Bench. The petitioner has desired to challenge the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. Today when he was asked to read that part of the pleadings wherein he had advance the arguments against the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlal, he fairly conceded that there is no challenge in the writ petition. May be by that the Division Bench and Single Bench in its orders passed earlier had felt persuaded on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this writ petition deserves to be revived. But fact are otherwise, the petitioner himself admits that there is no specific challenge to the allotment in favour of M/s. Raichand Mohanlai in this writ petition nor there is any prayer to that effect. 9. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench order could not be made applicable qua the present writ petition. Revival of the present writ petition can therefore, be said to be under some mis-representation. This Court is constrained to observe that there had been some misunderstanding. if all the orders quoted hereinabove are seen together the misunderstanding is clear. The petitioner consciously got the writ petition dismissed as not pressed on 13.8.1996. This could only be revived if this order was set aside. The Division Bench has ordered only revival of the writ petition wherein there was a challenge to the allotment to M/s. Raichand Mohanlal. Petitioner admits that there is no challenge to the allotment of M/s. Ralchand Mohanlal. 10. No hearing can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. It is observed that this writ petition has already been dismissed by orders of this Court on 13.8.1996. The orders of revival of this writ petition has been sought by the petitioner under mis-conception. No further orders are required to be passed. The writ petition is, therefore, consigned to records.Writ Petition Consigned to Records. *******