Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court deems just and proper may kindly b e passed in favour of the petitioner.
(3 of 5) [CW-620/2017] E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."

As per the petitioner, the land where the respondent Municipal Council desires to construct a "Sabjimandi" is essentially earmarked for a public park. It is also stated that much back in the year 1976 a decision was taken by General House of the Municipal Council, Rajsamand to keep the land in-question vacant to develop a public park. Subsequent thereto, in the year 2001 a decision was taken for using the land in-question for commercial purposes and that was questioned by way of filing an application before the Collector, Rajsamand as per provisions of Section 285 of the Municipalities Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1959'). Suffice to mention that at that time certain kiosks were constructed by Municipal Council, Rajsamand and those were objected by initiating proceedings under Section 285 of the Act of 1959. The Collector, Rajsamand set aside the decision of the Municipal Council, Rajsamand to construct kiosks. It is also pertinent to notice that under Section 285 of the Act of 1959 Collector had only interim power to stop execution of resolution taken by a Municipal Board and further to refer it to the State Government but no such procedure appears to have been adhered.

Be that as it may, a reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent Municipal Council, Rajsamand stating therein that for the same cause a Civil Suit bearing No.194/2016 (4 of 5) [CW-620/2017] was filed before the court of learned Civil Judge, Rajsamand. An application to have temporary injunction as per provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also filed, that came to be dismissed under an order dated 16.1.2017. The order passed by the civil court is subject matter of an appeal pending before the court of learned District Judge, Rajsamand. It is also brought into knowledge of Court that the civil court before passing order dated 16.1.2017 issued a public notice, that was published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' dated 08.12.2016. The facts stated above, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents were intentionally concealed by the petitioner only to have interim direction, which was passed by this Court on 24.1.2017. During pendency of appeal, the present petitioner has preferred instant petition for writ without disclosing the facts referred above. The writ petition is supported by an affidavit sworn-in by one Shri Madhu Prakash Laddha, whose real brother Shri Sampat Laddha, who happens to be Member of petitioner-Society and was appearing on behalf of plaintiffs in the Civil suit.

In this factual background we permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with a cost of Rs.1.0 Lac, which is to be deposited with Municipal Council, Rajsamand by the petitioner- Society on or before 20.3.2017. The dismissal of this writ petition shall be having no effect on merits of the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs said to be pending before the District Judge, Rajsamand giving challenge to the order dated 16.1.2017. (DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Sanjay