RAM KARAN CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals though arise out of different orders, having passed by different benches, relating to different areas, and having different facts, still ultimately involve the common question, and therefore, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) APPEAL No. 912/2000 has been filed against the order passed by the single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2734/2000, dismissing the writ petition, on the ground, that entire rights and liabilities flow from a contract between the petitioner and the Committee, and for enforcement of contractual relations, writ petition is not maintainable. It was also found, that it involves disputed questions of fact, and that, according to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal, (AIR 1999 SC 1786), the Constitutional courts should insist upon the party to avail alternative remedy, instead of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court, and then generous, general and casual approach was not approved to clothe the High court with the power and jurisdiction under Article 226. Thus, it was found, that the petitioner can conveniently agitate the claim before the Civil Court. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) THEN, Appeal No. 178 has been filed against the judgment of the learned single judge dt. 7-8-2001, in Writ Petition No. 2300/99, finding, that this Court has considered the question of similarly situated auction, in the same auction, and in view of the view taken by the learned single Judge of this Court regarding the same auction, granting indulgence to the petitioner in that case, it would not be proper to distinguish this case also, and therefore, it was directed that members of the association, those who have not withdrawn their amount deposited at the auction, will be entitled to get their auctions regularised in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition was disputed. From this order it does not appear, as to in which case the view was taken by the learned single Judge, no reference thereof is there, nor any judgment is available on the file. Be that as it may. This was a petition filed by Nokha Khadhya vyapar Mandal.