Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Raj Associates vs State And Ors on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7670/2016
M/s. Dev Dashrath Royalites And Tollways
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7957/2016
M/s Mateshwari Royalties
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7958/2016
M/s Raj Associates
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7962/2016
M/s Mateshwari Royalties
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8311/2016
M/s. Raj Associates
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9765/2016
M/s. Shiv Stone Industries,
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10194/2016
Anand Singh Rathore
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
(Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 08:52:03 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-7670/2016]
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10342/2016
M/s Mateshwari Royalties
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9832/2017
M/s Shri Hari Minerals, Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder
Shri Narendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar S, By Caste Rajput R/o
Rani Deshipura, Tehsil Samdari, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
Through The Secretary To The
Mining Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Mines And
Geology, Khanij Bhawan,
Udaipur Rajasthan
3. The Mining Engineer, Mines And
Geology Department, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
Mr. BS Sandhu
Mr. Abhishek Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
17/12/2021
The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, in sum
and substance, for the following reliefs :
SBCWP No.7670/2016 :-
"(1) The impugned order dated 15.06.2016 (Annex.6) may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
(2) The respondents be directed to not to insist or pressurize the
petitioner to collect the DMF amount for the contract in question
executed between the petitioner and the respondent State
Government on 28.03.2016."
(Downloaded on 21/12/2021 at 08:52:03 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-7670/2016]
Counsel for the respondent has shown judgment of this
Court in M/s. Gajanand Associates Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8442/2016, decided on
01.12.2021), which was, on the basis of M/s. Harsh Enterprises
Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8956/2016), decided
on 09.11.2021.
This Court observes that the present controversy is settled in
view of the aforesaid order, however, counsel for the petitioner
submits that even if the Court is inclined to dispose of these
petitions in light of aforesaid judgment, then also their right may
be protected in case of receiving instructions from his client to
re-address the issue on merits, it shall be open for them to seek
for revival of the matter.
Looking to the peculiar circumstance of the case, these writ
petitions are disposed of while keeping it open for counsel for the
petitioner to re-agitate the issue on applicability of the judgment
and on merits of case in case they receive such instructions, which
they do not have today or if any cause of action still remains or
arises.
All pending applications stands disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
110-118 nirmala/Sanjay-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
