Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajesh Sharma Son Of Shri Krishan Gopal ... vs Naresh Kumar on 18 January, 2021
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13807/2020
Rajesh Sharma Son Of Shri Krishan Gopal Sharma, Aged About
46 Years, Resident Of 128-129, Brijmohan Sharma Nagar,
Ganeshpura Link Road, Beawer At Present Congress Ward
Member, Ward No. 42, Municipal Council Beawer, District-Ajmer
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Naresh Kumar, Chairman, Municipal Council Beawer,
District-Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Chirag Goyal, Commissioner/secretary Lay Out
Committee, Municipal Council Beawer, District-Ajmer
(Raj.).
3. Puneet Sharma, Senior Town Planer, Ajmer (Raj.).
4. Dhanesh Runwal, Assistant Town Planer, Ajmer (Raj.).
5. Kapil Gaura, Junior Engineer, Municipal Council Beawer,
District-Ajmer (Raj.).
6. Chandu Lal Son Of Shri Premraj Jain, Resident Of Navkar,
Munautnagar, Beawer, District-Ajmer (Raj.).
7. Sanjay Jain Son Of Shri Thanmal Jain, Resident Of
Lokashah Nagar, Beawer, District-Ajmer (Raj.).
8. Director, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Tiwari, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv. (Through
Video Conferencing)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
18/01/2021
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 04.11.2020, passed by the Director
Local Self Government, Rajasthan - respondent No.8, whereby
(Downloaded on 20/01/2021 at 09:29:18 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-13807/2020]
impleadment application filed by the respondent No.6 - Chandu
Lal and respondent No.7 - Sanjay Jain has been allowed and they
are impleaded as a party respondents in the Revision Petition filed
under Section 327 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2009').
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Revision
Petition filed under Section 327 of the Act of 2009 had challenged
the decision dated 06.07.2020, passed by the Municipal Council,
Beawar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was
filed on behalf of two applicants - Chandu Lal Kothari & Sanjay
Jain and without even supplying the copy of the application, the
impugned order has been passed by making these two applicants
as party in the Revision Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that perusal of
the order dated 04.11.2020, shows that first application for
impleadment was allowed and the matter was posted on
20.11.2020 and copy of the application was ordered to be
furnished to the petitioner/their council and the matter was posted
for further consideration of the Revision Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if at all
such application for impleadment was to be considered by
impleading the applicants as party respondents in the revision
petition, the minimum requirement of giving an opportunity and
supplying copy of the application, was not complied with by the
Officer concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
dated 04.11.2020 has taken valuable right of the petitioner to file
(Downloaded on 20/01/2021 at 09:29:18 PM)
(3 of 5) [CW-13807/2020]
objection about the impleadment and as such this Court needs to
interfere in the present matter.
Learned counsel Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, appearing on behalf of
the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, submitted that no illegality has been
committed in the impugned order. Learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner, who has filed the revision petition, has got an ex-
parte order dated 23.10.2020.
Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents-
applicants are necessary parties as their right is vitally affected
due to interim order passed on 23.10.2020.
Learned counsel submitted that no prejudice is caused to the
petitioner, if respondents-applicants have been allowed to be
impleaded as a party. Learned counsel submitted that in fact
revision petition itself was not maintainable as the necessary
parties were not impleaded by the petitioner in their revision
petition and as such no mistake has been committed by the Court
below, while allowing the application.
Learned counsel further submitted that right of filing
objections has already been granted by the respondent No.8 and
as such whatever objections petitioner may have about
impleadment, he is always free to make such submissions, as
ample opportunity is given to the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that the subsequent
order, which has been passed by the Officer-respondent No.8,
clearly reflects that the interim order dated 23.10.2020 is causing
great prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner has not been
able to make use of land in question and lay out plan has already
been approved by the Competent Authority and as such the
(Downloaded on 20/01/2021 at 09:29:18 PM)
(4 of 5) [CW-13807/2020]
respondents cannot be restrained to make use of the land in
question, as per the relevant bylaws.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by
the respondent No.8, makes a mention for supplying copy of the
application to the party i.e. Municipal Council, Beawar and other
parties like petitioner and as such they have been given
opportunity to raise objections and to argue the matter on the
next date.
This Court finds that if the impleadment application was filed
by the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, proper course should have been to
supply copy of such application and if the respondent No.8
thought it proper to implead respondent Nos.6 & 7 as party
respondents, he could have passed the same order, after giving
proper opportunity to the revisionist or his counsel-petitioner.
This Court finds that the procedure, which has been adopted
by the respondent No.8 of allowing application does not meet the
requirement of law as opportunity was not afforded to the
petitioner and at least copy of the application of impleadment and
opportunity to make submissions either orally or by filing a reply
to such application ought to have given. The proper course would
have been to supply a proper copy of the application of
impleadment and then to pass order, as per relevant facts and law
about impleadment of the party.
The submission made by learned counsel for the respondents
that an ex-parte stay order dated 23.10.2020 is causing great prejudice to the respondents and the revision petition filed by the petitioner directly affects rights of the respondents, suffice it to (Downloaded on 20/01/2021 at 09:29:18 PM) (5 of 5) [CW-13807/2020] say for this Court that if impleadment application is allowed after hearing both the sides, the parties are always free to file proper application and they can also make a request to the Authority to continue or vacate of the interim order dated 23.10.2020.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the order dated 04.11.2020 needs to be set aside. The respondent No.8 will be free to proceed further in the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner or to the other parties to have a copy of the impleadment application and after affording an opportunity to them, appropriate orders may be passed on impleadment or non-impleadment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
This Court further finds that if any application for vacation of interim order or continuation of stay order is to be considered by the respondent No.8, the same can always be done by him, after giving an opportunity to both the parties.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. It is expected from the respondent No.8 that application for impleadment will be decided expeditiously and no unncessary adjournment will be granted to any of the parties.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/Monika/5 (Downloaded on 20/01/2021 at 09:29:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)