Chandra Shekhar Yadav Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2785 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6996/2021

Chandra Shekhar Yadav Son Of Late Shri Jagmal Singh Yadav,
aged about 44 years, resident of Ward No.4, Bijlighar Tiraha,
Tijara, Tehsil Tijara, district Alwar (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan through the Director, Local Self
Government Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Tijara, Tehsil Tijara, District
Alwar (Rajasthan)

3. District Collector, Alwar (Rajasthan)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta AAG with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey and Mr. Amaru Vishnoi AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment / Order

10/03/2023

The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition

assailing the order dated 19.3.2021 passed by the Dy. Director

(Regional), Local Self Department, Jaipur, (for short 'the Appellate

Authority') whereby the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner

against the order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Executive

Officer, Nagar Palika, Tijara, District Alwar, by which application of

the petitioner seeking permission of construction was rejected,

was dismissed.

The petitioner preferred the appeal against the order

dated 20.10.2020 under section 194 (12) of the Rajasthan

Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009') on several

(2 of 3) [CW-6996/2021]

grounds as stated in the memo of appeal. Reply to the memo of

appeal as also reply to the stay application was also submitted by

the respondents.

The Appellate Authority vide its judgment dated

19.3.2021, while dismissing the appeal, reproduced the contents

of the memo of appeal, stay application, reply to the memo of

appeal and the reply to the stay application. In the operative part

the Appellate Authority has observed that the case file was

produced, arguments of appellant counsel were heard and the

reply to the appeal submitted by the Executive Officer, Nagar

Palika, Tijara along-with the documents/ record, were perused and

appeal is liable to be dismissed as having no substance.

It is a well settled law that the Appellate Authority is

required to give its findings and observations in regard to each

and every ground raised by the appellant in his memo of appeal as

well as in the oral submissions.

The Appellate Authority in 10 (ten) pages of its

judgment has only quoted the contents of the memo of appeal,

stay application, reply to the memo of appeal and the reply to the

stay application and in the last in operative part has given its

verdict in four lines only with no reasonings.

Any judgment of Appellate Authority without making

specific observations and giving findings in regard to the grounds

agitated during the course of arguments and in the memo of

appeal, cannot be sustained as same is not a speaking order.

In view of the above, the order dated 19.3.2021 passed

by the Dy. Director (Regional), Local Self Department, Jaipur, is

quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to

(3 of 3) [CW-6996/2021]

decide the appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner afresh after

providing opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority is also

directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from

today by a speaking and reasoned order.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Since the main petition has been disposed of, the stay

application also stands disposed of.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Sharma NK/78

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)