Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manju vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 May, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023/RJJD/014500]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10759/2022
Manju W/o Sh. Amar Chand, Aged About 35 Years, Laxmi Petrol
Pump Ke Pass, Bhanwar Road, Sojat City, Sojat, District Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Local Self Government, Near Civil Line Phatak, Jaipur.
2. Municipality, Sojat (Pali) Through Commissioner.
3. Executive Officer, Municipality Sojat.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 10/05/2023
Pronounced on 16/05/2023
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ,
order or direction:-
(i) Order dated 20.07.2022 (Annex.5) may kindly be
declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner
to run the saras booth at the current sanctioned location.
(iii) In the alternative, the respondents may be directed to
rehabilitated the booth of the petitioner to another location
without her applying afresh;
(iv) The respondents may be further directed to accept the
rent for the upcoming months from the petitioner for
running the booth strictly in accordance with the law,
(Downloaded on 16/05/2023 at 11:41:14 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014500] (2 of 5) [CW-10759/2022]
(v) Cost of and damages may also be allowed in favour of
the petitioner.
(vi) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble
petitioner;"
2. As per the pleaded facts, the petitioner, in order to set up
and run a Saras Dairy Booth at Maud Bhatta, Sojat City (near Air
Strip, Sojat), deposited an advance rent amount for 3 months
along with the amount of allotment i.e. a total sum of Rs.3500/-,
with the Municipal Board - Sojat P-L-III-40, in accordance with the
terms and conditions for the same. After due submission of the
requisite fees, the respondent-Municipality, Sojat issued a No
Objection Certificate (NOC)/Sanction Letter on 22.07.2021 in
favour of the petitioner, so as to enable her to run the Saras Dairy
Booth in question, and that, the said NOC also contained a set of
terms and conditions with regard to setting up of the Saras Dairy
Booth at the requisite location.
2.1 Thus, the petitioner has been running the aforesaid booth for
the past 12 months at the location in question, strictly in
accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed therefor;
however, vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2022, the
sanction, as granted to the petitioner for running the Saras Booth,
was cancelled, and the petitioner was asked to move an
application for changing the location of the Saras Booth. Hence,
aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present petition has
been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner
had been depositing the requisite rent on a regular basis as well
(Downloaded on 16/05/2023 at 11:41:14 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014500] (3 of 5) [CW-10759/2022]
as paying the electricity bills and incurring other expenses, and
that, there are no other dues or payments pending on part of the
petitioner with regard to the running of the allotted Saras Booth.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order
is a non speaking order, and that, no complaint was submitted
against the petitioner in relation to running of the booth, prior to
passing of the impugned order. In furtherance, it was submitted
that the location of the booth does not disrupt the traffic in any
manner whatsoever, as it is situated at a distance of 15 feet from
the service lane, and thus, is even much farther away from the
main road.
3.2 It was also submitted that the terms of the agreement
clearly stated that in case any dispute arose amongst the parties,
it would be the duty of the municipality to shift the booth to some
other location; however, in the present case, the respondents
asked the petitioner to first vacate the booth and then apply
afresh for allotment. It was further asserted that the No Objection
Certificate nowhere prescribed that the booth could be required to
be vacated immediately, even without any prior notice.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing
the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,
submitted that the booth in question is situated on the service
lane and the same hampers the ongoing traffic on the road. It was
further asserted that the booth in question was causing issues in
(Downloaded on 16/05/2023 at 11:41:14 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014500] (4 of 5) [CW-10759/2022]
the movement of the common people, and thus, on account of
their complaints in that regard, the impugned order was passed.
4.1 It was further submitted that in the agreement, it was clearly
stated that no interruptions should arise with regard to the traffic
on the road; however, the same was not followed by the
petitioner, while running the booth at the location in question.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents is valid
and justified in law.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the No Objection Certificate was
provided to the petitioner for setting up a Saras Dairy Booth at
Maud Bhatta, Sojat City (near Air Strip Sojat) and the booth was
set up, as per the terms and conditions. This Court further
observes that the respondents vide the impugned order dated
20.07.2022 cancelled the allotment of the booth in question, on
the ground of complaints, pertaining to disruption of traffic
movement, received from the general public residing near the
location in question.
7. This Court also observes that the booth in question is
situated within the boundary of the service line and is disrupting
the natural flow of traffic on the road. This Court further observes
that the complaints were received by the respondents, and on the
basis thereof, the impugned order was passed.
8. This Court also observes that the No Objection
Certificate/Sanction letter dated 22.07.2021, clearly reveals that
establishing of booth by the petitioner must never cause any
disruption in the traffic movement in the area in question, which
(Downloaded on 16/05/2023 at 11:41:14 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014500] (5 of 5) [CW-10759/2022]
condition, as per the record, was not adhered to by the petitioner,
while running the booth in question. Therefore, the impugned
order passed by the respondents is perfectly justified in law.
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a
fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present
petition.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However,
the petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh application before
the respondents for allotment of the Saras Booth at appropriate
location where the traffic, footpath or any flow of public
convenience is not affected, and the respondents shall consider
and decide the same by passing a speaking order, strictly in
accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
