✦ Rajasthan High Court

Umang Sawalka v. State of Rajasthan

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 18353 of 2015ANOOP KUMAR DHAND3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

The instant writ petitions stand dismissed as having become

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. The instant writ petitions stand dismissed as having become infructuous. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Judgment

Umang Sawalka S/o Shri Suresh Bajranglal Sawalka, Aged About 27 years, R/o Flat No. 807, Shiv Gyan Enclave, Gautam Marg, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. The District Collector, Jaipur (Raj.) The Dy. Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur Raj.

6. The Enforcement Officer, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur Raj.

7. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18354/2015

1. Shivgyan Developers Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Plot No. 16, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur through its Director Shri Vinod Sawalka..

2. Vinod Sawalka S/o Late Shri Bajrang Lal Sawalka, Aged About 58 years, R/o Flat No. 806-807, Shiv Gyan Enclave, Gautam Marg, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioners (2 of 3) [CW-18353/2015] Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Jaipur Development Authority through its Secretary, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. The District Collector, Jaipur (Raj.) The Dy. Commissioner, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, JLN Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

6. The Enforcement Officer, Zone-4, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. The Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jeetendra Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/01/2026

1.

It has been apprised at the Bar that some order was passed by the Jaipur Development Authority for eviction of the petitioners’ building. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petitions and subsequently, interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners and in the meantime, construction was completed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the instructions now, the JDA has taken a decision to withdraw the impugned orders. Counsel submits that some time be granted to (3 of 3) [CW-18353/2015] the petitioners to place the documents in this regard on the record, hence, the case be deferred for some other day.

3.

Looking to the fact that the Jaipur Development Authority has taken a decision not to take any action against the petitioners and in the opinion of this Court, no cause of action survives with the petitioners to continue with these petitions and with the passage of time, these petitions have become infrcutuous.

Operative part

4.

The instant writ petitions stand dismissed as having become infructuous. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

5.

However, the petitioners would be at liberty to move an application for revival of these petitions and recall of this order, in case, any cause of action/ grievance still survives. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/8-9

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The instant writ petitions stand dismissed as having become

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Companies Act, 2013.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 18353 of 2015). ← Search more judgments