Advocates:
['B M BOHRA', '', 'D L R VYAS', 'KULDEEP VAISHNAV', 'ABHISHEK BOHRA', 'J S NARUKA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16935/2019

M/s. Shri Devdarshrath Tollways, Through Its Proprietor Jitendra

Singh Bhati S/o Shri Madho Singh Bhati, 50 Years Ummed Nagar,

Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Director, Mines And Geology Department, Directorate,

Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.

3.

The Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department,

Bikaner

4.

The Accountant General, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5.

Then Assistant Mining Engineer (Recorvery), Mines And

Geology Department, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. B. M. Bohra

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

15/11/2019

The petitioner has challenged the demand noticed dated

10.07.2019 (Annex.8) so also the notice dated 09.10.2019

(Annex.9) for recovery initiated under the Rajasthan Land

Revenue Act, 1956.

The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that after

completion of contract, the respondents have raised additional

demand based on audit objection.

Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that earlier also, a

similar notice for the same contract period was issued on

(2 of 3)

[CW-16935/2019]

01.06.2017, on the basis of audit objection, whereagainst the

petitioner had preferred writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition

No.7830/2017 (M/s Shri Devdashrath Tollways Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.), and this Court has stayed the recovery of the

amount mentioned in the notice.

He argues that notwithstanding the pendency of the said writ

petition, the respondents have again issued noticed dated

10.07.2019 and sought to recover a sum of Rs.2,15,88,252/- that

too on the basis of audit objection.

Basic premise for which the present writ petition has been

preferred, is that the respondents having taken identical stand on

the earlier occasion, seeking to recover a sum of

Rs.1,37,79,110/-, for the same reason have sought to recover a

sum of Rs.02,15,88,252/-. He added that both the demand

notices have been issued on the basis of audit objection and for

the same period.

In considered opinion of this Court, since the petitioner’s

earlier writ petition (SB Civil Writ Petition No.7830/2017) is

pending, he is required to file second stay application/amendment

application in the said writ petition, as the basis for demand notice

remains the same.

No separate cause of action has accrued, the impugned

demand notice is revised/amended demand notice. Hence, the

petitioner’s instant writ petition is misconceived and not

maintainable.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

The stay application is also dismissed.

(3 of 3)

[CW-16935/2019]

The petitioner will, however, be free to move appropriate

application in his earlier writ petition, i.e. SB Civil Writ Petition

No.7830/2017.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

221-A.Arora/-