Rajasthan High Court
Mohar Pal Meena S/O Kesara Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:9873) on 27 February, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:9873]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1736/2024
1. Mohar Pal Meena S/o Kesara Meena, Aged About 61
Years, R/o Village - Charnet, Tehsil - Dooni, Distt. - Tonk,
Rajasthan.
2. Ramesh Meena S/o Amba Lal Meena, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Village- Charnet, Tehsil - Dooni, Distt. - Tonk,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Tonk,
Rajasthan.
2. Principal Secretary Department Of Revenue, Secretariat
Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Sub Divisional Magistrate- Deoli, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. Tehsildar, Dooni, District - Tonk, Rajasthan.
5. Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat
Jaipur Rajasthan.
6. Superintendent Of Police, District - Tonk, Rajasthan.
7. S.H.O. Police Station -Dooni, District-Tonk, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
27/02/2024
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the
respondents to free the subject land from encroachment.
However, there is not a whisper of averment in the memo of
the writ petition that either legal or fundamental rights(s) of the
petitioners has been infringed in absence whereof, this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
maintainable as held by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in case of Calcutta Gas Company
[2024:RJ-JP:9873] (2 of 3) [CW-1736/2024]
(Proprietary) Ltd. versus State of West Bengal & Ors.: AIR
1962 Supreme Court 1044 wherein, it was held as under:-
"5. The first question that falls to be
considered is whether the appellant has
locus standi to file the petition under Art.
226 of the Constitution. The argument of
learned counsel for the respondents is that
the appellant was only managing the
industry and it had no proprietary right
therein and, therefore, it could not maintain
the application. Article 226 confers a very
wide power on the High Court to issue
directions and writs of the nature mentioned
therein for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III or for any other
purpose. It is, therefore, clear that persons
other than those claiming fundamental
rights can also approach the court seeking a
relief thereunder. The Article in terms does
not describe the classes of persons entitled
to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in the
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
that the relief asked for must be one to
enforce a legal right. In State of Orissa v.
Madan Gopal, 1952 S C R 28 :(AIR 1952 S C
12) this Court has ruled that the existence
of the right is the foundation of the exercise
of jurisdiction of the court under Art. 226 of
the Constitution. In Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri
v. Union of India, 1950 S C R 869 :(AIR
1951 S C 41) , it has been held by this Court
that the legal right that can be enforced
under Art. 32 must ordinarily be the right of
the petitioner himself who complains of
[2024:RJ-JP:9873] (3 of 3) [CW-1736/2024]
infraction of such right and approaches the
court for relief. We do not see any reason
why a different principle should apply in the
case of a petitioner under Art. 226 of the
Constitution. The right that can be enforced
under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the
personal or individual right of the petitioner
himself, though in the case of some of the
writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto
this rule may have to be relaxed or
modified."
In view thereof, this civil writ petition is dismissed being non-
maintainable.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/34
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
