Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 67 (RAJ)

Tribhuvan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-05

N.N.MATHUR

body2006
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant petition grievance has been voiced with respect to illegal construction of Cold Storage by the 9th respondent namely Salasar Balaji Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. on space between the National High Way No. 65 and the Railway Line. A reference has been made to an earlier writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4492/2000 disposed of by the order of this Court dated 012.2000 with liberty to the petitioner to raise the grievance before the Honble Chief Minister by way of a petition. A request was made to the Honble Chief Minister to take immediate action on the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted that inspite of a representation submitted, nothing has been done by the State Government. 2. It is averred that the disputed construction is being raised on the land situated on the National High Way No. 65 within the prohibited distance from the National High Way as well as the Railway Line. It is also averred that in the very vicinity there was a Cold Storage and there was a fire which resulted into loss of lacs of rupees. It is submitted that it would not be just and proper to permit construction of Cold Storage in the residential area as there is a risk of fire which may cause huge loss to the public at large. It is also pointed out that the application filed by the Respondent No. 9 for conversing the land for industrial use was referred to the Tehsildar, who in turn, sought a report from the Patwari. It was reported by the Patwari that the land is situated on the National High Way and the construction is being raised at about 35 ft. away from the centre of the National High Way. It was also reported that the construction in Khasra No. 886 is going on at a distance of about 35 ft. away from the central point of the Railway Line. The Tehsildar without taking note of the report of the Patwari gave no objection as to the conversion of land for industrial purposes. In view of the report of the Tehsildar the Conversion Committee which met on 21.03.2000 approved the conversion of the land for industrial use. Separate affidavits have been filed by the respondents. 3. The Tehsildar without taking note of the report of the Patwari gave no objection as to the conversion of land for industrial purposes. In view of the report of the Tehsildar the Conversion Committee which met on 21.03.2000 approved the conversion of the land for industrial use. Separate affidavits have been filed by the respondents. 3. The contesting Respondent No. 9 has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petition has not been filed bona fidely, but for extraneous consideration and oblique motive. On a direction given by this Court on earlier petition, the State Government having found the representation frivolous and baseless rejected the same. The petition has been filed at the instance of competitors who are running cold storage in the city. It is also submitted that the construction has been raised after obtaining due permission from the concerned departments. A large number of documents has been placed on record by way of reply, rejoinder and reply to rejoinder. 4. A reply has also been filed on behalf of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur stating that no objection certificate was given after having found that the construction was sought to be raised after maintaining the prescribed width of the road and the prescribed distance from the Railway Line. A reply has also been filed on behalf Railway Administration. Details have been given of the relevant rules and the notifications. It is submitted that the open space between the construction and the Railway Line is sufficient as per the decision of the Railway Board. A joint reply has also been filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7. It is being pointed out that the construction is being raised after obtaining the approval and the land being converted into industrial land. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly on a petition filed under the label of public interest litigation. All the concerned departments have made statement that construction of the Cold Storage has been raised after the due permission being given in accordance with the relevant provisions. All the concerned departments have made statement that construction of the Cold Storage has been raised after the due permission being given in accordance with the relevant provisions. It has been tacitly admitted that the petitioner is not residing in the vicinity, apparently he has no interest in the matter. There appears to be substance that the instant petitioner has been filed at the instance of the persons, who are having business of Cold Storage. The construction of the Cold Storage was substantially raised even before filing of the writ petition. No interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.