Suo Moto vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Applicant-United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, has filed the instant application for removal of seizure of its Office by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur.

It is contended in the application that Commissioner of Nagar Nigam, Civil Line Zone, Jaipur has issued notices dated 12.12.2012 and 19.12.2012 to the applicant, in pursuance of directions of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4783/2003-Suo Motu vs. State of Rajasthan & others, asking the applicant to stop commercial activities in the premises as it is situated in residential colony, failing which the premise shall be seized. Notice was replied by the applicant, contending therein that activities of the applicant are not commercial in nature. It has also been contended that sudden seizure of the Company may cause great inconvenience to the public at large, it is also submitted that shifting of the Office of the Company may take some time as the Company has to follow the strict guidelines.

Respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur has filed its reply to application.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is a Public Limited Company and carrying out the insurance activities. Since, public at large is affected, therefore, a reasonable time may be granted to stop the commercial activities. It is submitted that although activities of the applicant are not commercial in nature, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant may be permitted to shift its activities and for that purpose, six months'' time may be granted.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since action of the respondent is in pursuance of direction of this Court, therefore, there is no illegality in the action of respondents.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

So far as applicant is concerned, a submission has been confined only to grant some reasonable time to shift the activities of the applicant to some other premise. No other submission has been advanced on behalf of the applicant.

So far as respondents are concerned, learned counsel for respondents is unable to satisfy this Court as to why action against the applicant was not taken in last more than 9 years, as order was passed by this Court way back on 20.10.2004 to the effect that no commercial activity in residential premises shall be allowed to be carried out by the Jaipur Development Authority, the Jaipur Municipal Corporation and the Rajasthan Housing Board under the areas of their jurisdiction. Now, in pursuance of directions of this Court, action has been taken by the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur by issuing a notice dated 12.12.2012.

There is no reasonable explanation by the respondents, rather it is a matter of contempt against the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur and now they are not even granting a reasonable time to shift the activities of the applicant, whereas they themselves did not take action for last about 9 years.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a reasonable time has to be granted to the applicant to shift its activities to some other premise. In our view, ends of justice will meet in case a reasonable time of four months is granted to the applicant for the same. Consequently, we allow this application and direct the respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur to open its seal from the premise of the applicant, immediately, and grant four months time to shift its activities to some other suitable premise. Applicant undertakes to give an undertaking to shift its activities from the premise in question to some other suitable premise during course of the day, with an advance copy of the same to the Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Municipal Corporation, Jaipur.