Point of Law: A simple note put under head ‘Notes’ signed by counsel for petitioner is not enough for maintainability of petition.

ORDER :

I.A. No.01/2023

1. The instant application has been filed by the respondent – Municipal Board, Bilara interalia praying that the interim order dated 14.01.2020 passed by this Court be recalled.

2. Arguing said application, Mr. Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents highlighted that the petitioner alongwith four other persons had earlier preferred a joint writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13679/2019 and the same was listed on 13.09.2019.

3. He contended that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered petitioner’s case and simply issued notice without granting any interim order. He submitted that on the very same day, two cases of Ajay Hans (SBCWP No.13544/2019) and Atul Kalla (SBCWP No.13604/2019) challenging the very same impugned order were listed, in which detailed orders were passed and interim orders were granted, whereas in petitioner’s case, only notices were ordered to be issued.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant – respondent State brought to the Court’s notice a fact that the petitioner(s) withdrew said writ petition (No.13679/2019) on 10.01.2020, without even informing him (the counsel for the respondents) who had not only filed his power but had also filed reply.

5. Thereafter, each of the petitioners filed separate writ petitions and procured interim order from this Court making a submission that the controversy involved in the present matter is akin to one involved in Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.15048/2019).

6. He submitted that had the petitioner’s case been identical, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would have granted interim order in petitioner’s favour on 13.09.2019, itself, but the same was not consciously done and narrating the controversy in all the cases separate orders were passed. Despite knowing it well, the petitioner withdrew her writ petition (SBCWP No.13679/2019) and filed the present writ petition with a clear intention to mislead this Court and to secure an interim order.

7. Mr. Devendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner responding to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards note No.1 in the ‘Notes’ and submitted that the petitioner has mentioned the factum of filing of the earlier writ petition and its withdrawal and therefore, there is no concealment on the part of the petitioner.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. In order to ascertain the veracity of assertions made by Mr. Parihar, the Court summoned the original record of writ petitions No.13679/2019 (filed by the petitioner); 13544/2019 (Ajay Hans); and 13604/2019 (Atul Kalla). Wading through the records, this Court found that on 13.09.2019, Atul Kalla’s petition being SBCWP No.13604/2019 was listed at Serial No.217 of the daily causelist. Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court noticed the submission made by learned counsel in detail and being prima-facie convinced, passed an interim order in favour of Atul Kalla. Case of Ajay Hans (SBCWP No.13544/2019) was listed at Serial No.214 and noticing the similar submission, interim order came to be passed but in the writ petition filed by the petitioner (through the same learned counsel), the Co-ordinate Bench simply issued notices without granting any interim relief.

10. The petitioner (being one of the petitioners in SBCWP No.13679/2019) was well aware that the Court has only issued notices and has not granted any interim relief for the reasons mentioned in the proceedings of 13.09.2019.

11. It appears that other candidate Jitendra Kumar later on filed a writ petition (SBCWP No.15048/2019) in which an interim order came to be passed (by another Hon’ble Judge) and that perhaps, prompted the petitioner to file a fresh petition.

12. This Court is shocked rather pained to realise the extent to which the petitioner and her counsel can traverse. The petitioner having failed to obtain interim order in her earlie