D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.253/2004 (Sumit Kumar & Anr. v. State of Raj.) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed
Judgment
Operative part
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH BALIA,J. HON'BLE MR. R.P.VYAS,J. Mr.T.S.Champawat, for the petitioner. Mr.B.N.Kalla, for the respondent No.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of opinion that there is no specific averments identifying that the land which was reserved as Gochar land at the time when the quarry licence was sanctioned vide Annex. R/1 in favour of the respondent No.6. The very foundation for bringing this lis as public interest litigation fails when during the course of the arguments it was conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all lands allotted in favour of respondent No.6 as on the date when the quarry licence was issued, were recorded either as Govt. land or of the private Khatedari but no part of it was not recorded as Gochar Land. Moreover, it has been pointed out by the respondents that during the pendency of writ petition both Annex. R/1 & R/2, the very impugned quarry licences have been cancelled and the order of cancellation has been subjected to challenge by the licensees before the court, which petitions are pending. 2 In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the principal cause of action itself has come to an end and matter of cancelling licence is pending consideration in separate petition challenging the said order, wherein all objections may be raised. Hence, no cause survives for proceeding with this petition as PIL. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (R.P.VYAS),J. (RAJESH BALIA),J. Arti
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 15 May 2006. The bench was R P VYAS, RAJESH BALIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.