KOMAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is one Komal Chand Patni. He has filed the writ petition against the Stale of Rajasthan and Girish Chand Agarwal and four others. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order No. 5:13 : NA: UDH1: 3:2000 dated 23.6.2000 (Annex. 1) and to direct the respondents not to change and alter or modify the master plan of Jaipur City by changing land use of the subject lands. There are other consequential and incidental prayers. Notices have been served on the non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 and they are now represented by Dr. P.C. Jain. In the writ petition, the first respondent is represented by Shri Mohd. Rafique, Addl. Advocate General. The Covt. has also filed reply to the writ petition. It is seen from the reply that the State Government on a consideration of the entire matter found that the procedure prescribed was not followed in the matter and therefore, the Govt. by its order dated 23.3.2001 has withdrawn the order dated 23.6.2000. The copy of the said order has been filed along with the reply as Annexure R1/1. In view of the withdrawal of the order dated 23.6.2000, it is submitted by Mr. Mohd. Rafique, thelearned Add!. Advocate General and also by Hie learned counsel for the pelilioner that Ihc writ -petition has become inFrucliJous and the same may be dismissed as having become infrucluous. The order dated 23,3.2001 runs as under: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) SHRI P.C. Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 6 slates that the order dated 23rd March, 2001 has been passed by the State Government without giving any opportunity to the respondents and that the impugned ordefin the writ petition has been withdrawn by the order dated 23rd of March, 2001 during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have been dragged to the Court and now it is stated that the order impugned in the writ petition, which was passed in their favour has been withdrawn by the State Government by the order dated 23rd of March, 2001. Therefore, Shri P.C. Jain submits that the respondents Nos. 2 to 6 should be sufficiently compensated.

(3.) RESERVING the liberty lo the respondenls Nos. 2 to 6 to challenge the order daled 23.3.2001, this writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. However, there willbe no orders as to costs.