MAL SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions relate to same controversy. Writ Petition No. 7560/2009 was filed on 25. 7. 2009 while the Writ Petition No. 6172/2009 was filed on 25. 5. 2009. Both seek to challenge the proposed action of the State government whereby it is proposed to convert certain land for commercial purposes. Notice in this regard was issued by the Municipal Board, Nagour which is sought to be challenged on the ground that Municipal Board has no authority to issue notice, or to initiate action for such conversion. Writ no. 6172 was listed in the Court on 3. 7. 2009 on which date Mr. J. S. Rao, Advocate appeared, and sought time, and the matter was adjourned for two weeks. Then, the matter was again listed on 22. 7. 2009, that day another counsel Mr. N. M. Lodha appeared, and he also prayed for adjournment since one of us was constituent of that bench that day (N. P. Gupta, J.), and I remember that it transpired that day that Mr. Lodha would be advising his client to withdraw the writ petition. It is during this interregnum period after 22. 7. 2009 that Writ Petition No. 7560 has been filed on 25. 7. 2009 which came to be listed on 3. 8. 2009 on which date this writ petition no. 6172 was also listed. On 3. 8. 2009 in writ no. 6172 when Mr. Singhvi appeared as caveator, and it was directed that copy of writ petition be supplied to him. Thereafter when the Writ petition No. 7560 came up that very day, since it struck it to be the matter relating to the same controversy it was ordered to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 6172. This is how both these petitions were subsequently listed on 26. 8. 2009, and then they have come up today. In Writ petition No. 6172 reply has been filed by the caveator disputing the bonafide of the writ petitioner, so also correctness and genuineness and identity of the persons, and specific plea has been taken that no person like Dr. Jyoti s/o Shri Ram Prasad resides as revealed consequent upon enquiries made by the Director of the caveator. Then, it was also pleaded that in communication dt. 23. 7. 2009 it was stated that in the writ petition, High Court had taken cognizance, and therefore, land should not be converted apart from the fact that three communications produced by the respondent as Annexure 5/1 and 5/2 collectively show that the signatures appearing on those papers are altogether different than the signatures appear on the writ petition. Then, it is also pleaded that the writ petition has been managed by another professional rival being existing dealer of Maruti Vehicles at Ajmer being Raj Auto wheels Pvt. Ltd. whose business shall be adversely affected in the event of caveator establishing his establishment at nagaur.

(2.) IT is in the above background that today both the matters have come up. Mr. Mehta appearing in Writ Petition no. 6172 submitted that he wants to withdraw the writ petition.

(3.) IN our view, may be that the learned counsel may be desiring to withdraw it but then overall comprehension of the situation in both the writ petitions show that the writ petitions are bereft of bonafides. The writ petitioners are not bonafide relater, and we are not inclined to entertain both the writ petitions.