Ram Lal Meena S/O Late Shri Nawal ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1115 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001167]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1547/2022

Mehandipur         Balaji   Ropeway         Pvt.     Ltd.,     Plot    No.   C-3/241,
Chitrakoot Yojna, Ajmer Road, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Through Its
Director Purushottam Khandelwal.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Forest
         And Environment Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       The Director, Tourism Department, Opposite Vidhayakpuri
         Police Station, M.i. Road, Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       The District Collector And District Magistrate, Dausa
         (Raj.).
4.       The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aravali Bhawan, Jhalana,
         Jaipur.
5.       Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest,
         Near Collectorate, Bhakari Road, Dausa.
6.       Superintending          Engineer,       Public       Works      Department,
         Dausa.
7.       M/s. Shivam Prime Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. a registered
         company under The Indian Companies Act, having its
         registered office at 84, Shivam Residency, Banipark,
         Jaipur, Through Its Director Shri Nitesh Chaudhary
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG with Mr. Prateek Singh, Adv.

Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Hardit Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Abdul Rauf, Adv. for Mr. Zakir Hussain, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

01/02/2023

[2023/RJJP/001167] (2 of 4) [CW-1547/2022]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that entire relevant record to the present case may kindly be called for and by scanning the same writ petition may kindly be allowed as under:-

i) by an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, order dated 05.05.2021 (Annexure-15) issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Jaipur may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, minutes of meeting dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure-23) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, respondents may kindly be directed to proceed further in pursuance of recommendations dated 19.11.2020, 23.11.2020 and 01.12.2020 for awarding project to the petitioner company.

iv) by an appropriate writ order or direction thereof, thereby, respondents may kindly be directed to issue the license in the name of the petitioner company for authorizing the construction of passenger ropeway from Mehandipur Balaji main road, Near Adarsh Vidhya Mandir to Bhairav Baba.

v) any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem just, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner company,

vi) Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner company.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is mainly

aggrieved by the Minutes of the Meeting held in the office of

District Collector, Dausa dated 29.12.2021 whereby the

Committee has made recommendation in favour of the respondent

No.7 for esablishing and operating the passenger ropeway from

Mehandipur Balaji main road, Near Adarsh Vidhya Mandir to

Bhairav Baba Temple.

[2023/RJJP/001167] (3 of 4) [CW-1547/2022]

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have

misused their powers and at the initial stage all the

recommendations of the Department of Forest Tourism and

Administration were in favour of the petitioner as per provision of

The Rajatshan Ropeways Act, 1996 (to be referred as Act of 1996)

but in a mala fide manner when the process was going on just to

give undue favour to respondent No.7, the respondents

recommended for grant of licence for the aforesaid project for

establishing and operating the said Ropeway in favour of

respondent No.7. Counsel further submits that there is no bar in

entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, if the action of the authority is arbitrary, without

jurisdiction, suffers with mala fide or is in violation of Rule 7 of

The Rajasthan Ropeways Rules, 2007 (to be referred as Rules of

2007).

In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Company reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657.

Ms. Sheetal Mirdha, AAG appearing on behalf of the

respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the writ

petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is pre-mature as the

licence in favour of the respondent NO.7 has not yet been issued

by the District Magistrate as provided under Section 10 of the Act

of 1996. Counsel further submits that even after grant of licence

in favour of either petitioner or in favour of respondent No.7, the

person aggrieved has a remedy of filing appeal/revision under

[2023/RJJP/001167] (4 of 4) [CW-1547/2022]

Section 22 of the Act of 1996 and prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons, firstly, a perusal of the order dated

29.12.2021 shows that only recommendation has been made in

favour of the respondent No.7 by the Committee and no licence

has yet been granted by the District Magistrate either in favour of

the petitioner or in favour of the respondent No.7, thus in my

considered view, the writ petition is pre-mature; secondly,

although the petitioner has levelled the allegations of mala fides,

however, no person by name has been impleaded as party-

respondent in the present writ petition; thirdly, in the event of

issuance of licence either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of

the respondent No.7, the aggrieved party can very well file appeal

before the Appellate Authority and revision before the State

Government under Section 22 of the Act of 1996; and lastly, in the

facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to

exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /47

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)