Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rishi Kumar Sharma vs Kanhaiya Lal Saini And Anr on 21 November, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20830 / 2017
Rishi Kumar Sharma S/o Bhuvneshwar Dayal Sharma, B/c
Brahmin, Aged About 50 Years, R/o A-45, Nehru Nagar, Shivaji
Marg, Panipech, Jaipur Presently Resided Plot No. 274, Giriraj
Nagar, Village Khejaru Ka Bass, New Sanganer Road, Tehsil
Sanganer, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kanhaiya Lal Saini S/o Shri Madho Lal Saini, Aged About 52
Years, Shankar Lal Saini S/o Shri Madho Lal Saini, Aged About 65
Years, Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 50
Years, All B/c Saini, R/o. 197, 198, 199, Girraj Nagar, Iscon Road,
Mansarovar, Jaipur.
....Respondent/Appellant
2. Jaipur Development Authority, Indira Circle, JLN Marg, Jaipur
through Its Secretary.
----Non-Respondent/Appellant
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : -
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
21/11/2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 34-A of JDA Act before JDA Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") challenging notice dated 02.05.2016 and order dated 03.05.2016 whereby the said premises has been sealed. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead him as party in the array of the respondents of the appeal which was dismissed (2 of 4) [CW-20830/2017] by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 25.10.2017. Earlier, the petitioner made a complaint against the inaction of the JDA and filed a writ petition No.2099/2016 which came to be disposed of on 22.02.2016 with direction to the JDA to require consideration on the complaint of the petitioner by taking action as warranted in law.
Thereafter, the petitioner further approached the High Court by way of SB Civil Contempt Petition No.509/2016 which was disposed of on 04.05.2016 on the averment made by JDA that the property in dispute has been attached and the said premises has been sealed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the sole person activated the JDA against illegal construction and encroachment made on plot No.194 to 199 by respondent No.1 without approval of the plan, project or scheme from JDA in contravention of JDA Act therefore, it was imperative for the Tribunal to implead the petitioner as a party in the appeal pending before it but the learned Tribunal dismissed the application moved by the petitioner in utter disregard of legal provisions .
While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the learned Tribunal in Impugned order noted as under:-
"ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk izfrikfnr U;k; n`"VkUr vfer tSu fo:) fjus'k xqIrk vkj-,y-vkj 2000 (1) 553 esa vke ukxfjdksa dks Hkh izkf/kdj.k ds dk;Z vFkok vdk;Z ,oa fu;e fo:) fd;s tk jgs fuekZ.k o mi;ksx ds lEcU/k (3 of 4) [CW-20830/2017] esa /;ku vkd`"V fd;s tkus dk vf/kdkj iznku fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ fjf"k dqekj 'kekZ }kjk blh vk/kkj ij ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; rd dk;Zokgh djrs gq, izkf/kdj.k dks dk;Zokgh gsrq lfdz; fd;k x;k gS] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i tfoizk }kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:) uksfVl fn;k tkdj /kkjk 34 d tfoizk vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mlds fuekZ.kk/khu ifjlj dks lhy dj fn;k x;k gSA bl izdkj izkf/kdj.k }kjk vius Lrj ij fof/kuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk jgh gS] ftls vihykFkhZ }kjk bl vf/kdj.k esa blh vihy ds ek/;e ls pqukSrh Hkh nh xbZ gSA tgkWa rd izkFkhZ dks bl izdj.k esa i{kdkj gksus dk iz'u gS] U;k;ky; ds le{k nksuksa i{k mifLFkr gksdj vc muds }kjk izLrqr nLrkost vkfn ds vk/kkj ij fof/kuqlkj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkuk gSA izkFkhZ }kjk viuh tkx:drk ds vk/kkj ij izkf/kdj.k dks lfdz; dj fn;k x;k gSA vc ,slh fLFkfr esa vihy dk fuLrkj.k fn;s x;s uksfVl o xq.knks"kksa o izdj.k ds rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkuk gSA izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr vc vkxs dh dk;Zokgh esa fdlh izdkj ls okafNr ;k vko';d ugha gS vkSj izkFkhZ dks i{kdkj cuk;s cxSj Hkh bl fookn dk fuLrkj.k mfpr :i ls fd;k tk ldrk gSA"
Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any illegality perversity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.
It is settled position of law that in exercise of it's power of (4 of 4) [CW-20830/2017] superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court cannot interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts subordinate to it, nor can it, in exercise of it's power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it.
The High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence, when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In exercise of it's power of superintendence, the Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned Tribunal in support of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition being meritless, is dismissed. In view of above, the stay application is also dismissed.
( DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J. Manish/32