Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sunil Safety Glass Industries vs Riico And Anr. on 12 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(5)WLN557
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
JUDGMENT Rajesh Balia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the learned single Judge passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2182 of 2001, the petitioner-appellant has filed this special appeal.
3. The petitioner-appellant filed the above writ petition before this Court asserting that he is in possession of the land in question without any allotment and he was seeking mandamus against respondent No. 1 to this effect that his unauthorised possession be regularised. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner-appellant moved an application that since his possession over the land in question has been regularised by respondent No. 1, be does not want to prosecute the writ petition and therefore, he may be allowed to withdraw the writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, noticing the fact that regularisation of the land in question made in favour of the petitioner-appellant has been made in terms of the policy decision taken by respondent No. 1, which requires consideration by this Court as a public interest litigation because it results in regularisation of unauthorised encroachments on the Govt. land and undue advantage to the tresspassers. Therefore, the regularisation policy which has been adopted by respondent No. 1 needs to be examined as a public interest litigation. The matter has been ordered to be placed before the Division Bench. Considering it to be a public cause, directions were issued to respondents No. 1 and 2 to place all relevant material, which led to the framing of the policy and the beneficiaries of that policy. It was also directed to issue notice to the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and Senior Advocates so that they may render their assistance to this Court.
5. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.7.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner-appellant has filed this appeal.
6. The Office has raised an objection that the order dated 20.7.2001 being not an order finally deciding the case, this appeal is not maintainable. Mr. R.D. Rastogi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant contends that order dated 20.7.2001 also results in rejection of his application for withdrawal and, therefore, this appeal is maintainable.
7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the defect pointed out by the office is not justified and is hereby overruled.
8. However, we are of the opinion that the appeal against the order dated 20.7.2001, by which the learned Single Judge has refused to dismiss the petition on the application of the petitioner, sustainable on merits. Once any petition is filed before the Court, its withdrawal is not absolute in the hands of the litigant and it can only be done with the permission of the Court. In appropriate cases, the Court may exercise its discretion to reject the prayer of withdrawal of the petition or appeal, as the case may be. As stated above, in the instant case, the learned Single Judge on the basis of the material placed before him was of the opinion that the issue raised in the writ petition needs to be tackled and considered as a public cause considering that the regularisation of petitioner's possession has not been done as a case of isolation but under the regular policy decision, which itself requires judicial scrutiny. Thus, the above discretion exercised by the learned single Judge, in our opinion rests within the jurisdiction of the Court, to take suo motu notice of any public cause.
9. It is now well settled that the Court can suo motu take notice of a public cause and consider it as a public cause by issuing notices to the concerned authorities and inviting assistance from the legal fraternity. This is what has been done by the learned Single Judge on considering the material that has been placed before him and in doing so, it cannot be said that he has exceeded his jurisdiction. Moreover, no order as such has been made by the learned single Judge deciding anything on merit of the case.
10. In this view of the matter, this appeal falls and is hereby dismissed in limine.