H U CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions raise identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order/judgment.

(2.) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these three writ petitions briefly stated are as follows : H. U. CONSTRUCTION CO. 's CASE :

(3.) IT was further submitted that Shri B. C. Parekh and Akshey Parekh Advocates filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3117 of 1992 (Sales Office System Co. V. State of Raj.) but that writ petition was got dismissed and that fact has not been mentioned in this writ petition and, therefore, material facts have been suppressed by the lawyers of the petitioner. IT was also submitted that these two lawyers also filed a Civil Suit on behalf of one Shri Hanif last year and in that suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed and that was dismissed. Thereafter, they availed their remedy before the District Consumer Protection Forum on that very day on behalf of one Saddam Hussain and obtained an ex-parte stay order. which was vacated in appeal by the State Forum for Consumer Protection, Jaipur. This year also, the advertisement notified for the auction for royalty collection was challenged by filing a writ petition on behalf of Sales Office System Company, Delhi (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3117 of 1992) and ultimately that writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 19. 6. 1992. IT was, therefore, contended that as these facts have been suppressed, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.