Rajendra Puri vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9617 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7515/2021

1. Rajendra Puri S/o Shri Dariyav Puri, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Near Gorav Path Petrol Pump, Sheoganj, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan).

2. Jagdish Puri S/o Shri Dariyav Puri, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Near Gorav Path Petrol Pump, Sheoganj, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Directorate Local Self Department, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Municipal Board, Sheoganj, District-Sirohi (Rajasthan) Through Its Executive Officer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. C.S. Kotwani, through Cisco
                               Webex App
For Respondent(s)        :



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

28/05/2021

1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, asserts that

the impugned seizure order dated 26.05.2021 has been made

without prior notice to the petitioners. He argues that the same is

in clear contravention of the Circular dated 01.10.2015, issued by

none other than the Director, Local Self Government itself.

2. While asserting that no fresh circular has been issued after

the Circular dated 01.10.2015, Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for

the petitioners argues that if the respondents were of the view

that there is any irregularity or the construction has been raised

(2 of 2) [CW-7515/2021]

without conversion and prior approval or otherwise contrary to

judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari, the

Municipal Board was required to at least give an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel argues that the petitioners have simply

constructed a godown in their agricultural land and commercial

activities are not being carried in such premises.

4. While highlighting petitioners' predicament and grievance,

learned counsel submits that if the impugned order dated

26.05.2021 is not stayed, it will adversely affect the petitioners

inasmuch as, their agricultural produce lying in the shops (which

are being used as godown) will spoil or rot.

4. The matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable

within 8 weeks.

6. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the order dated

26.05.2021 shall remain stayed.

7. It will be required of the respondent Chief Executive Officer

to forthwith lift the seizure of petitioners construction.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

40-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)