Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parmanand Prabhudayal Welfare ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15034/2017
Parmanand Prabhudayal Welfare Society, Sri Karanpur District
Sriganganagar, A Registered Welfare So, B/c Arora, R/o 85-C,
Block, Sri Karanpur, District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Local Bodies,
Directorate, Jaipur.
2. The District Collector, Sriganganagar.
3. The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sri Karanpur,
District Sri Ganganagar.
4. Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Srikaranpur, District
Sriganganagar.
5. Suendra Kumar S/o Shri Peda Ram, B/c Kmboj Obc, R/o
Ward No.9, Sri Karanpur, District Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain, Mr. Mahipal Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
05/10/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-
society with a prayer that the respondent No.3 be
restrained from granting permission to the respondent
No.5 for constructing a marriage palace on a land,
description of which is given in the writ petition, in
Srikaranpur, Distt. Sri Ganganagar.
(2 of 3) [CW-15034/2017]
Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Kotwani appearing for the
respondent No.5 has informed this Court that though he
has applied before the respondent No.3 for granting
permission to him to construct a marriage palace on the
land situated in Murabba No.43 of Chak 1-FA,
Srikaranpur, Distt. Sriganganagar, however, now he has
already moved an application before the respondent No.3
and other authorities showing his willingness to withdraw
the application for granting permission to construct the
marriage palace as at present, he has already decided
not to construct the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has
submitted that he has already moved an application
No.01/21 with a prayer to dismiss this writ petition as
infructuous in view of the above mentioned subsequent
developments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the writ petition cannot be dismissed as infructuous as
the respondent No.5 can use the land in question for any
other commercial purposes.
Be that as it may, the grievance raised by the
petitioner in this writ petition is regarding construction of
a marriage palace by the respondent No.5, however, now
when the respondent No.5 himself has decided not to
(3 of 3) [CW-15034/2017]
construct the marriage palace over the land in question,
no further order is required to be passed in this writ
petition.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh
writ petition, if occasion so arises.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
261-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
