[2025:RJ-JP:5964] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8519/2014 Somesh Arya S/o Shri Nripesh Arya, aged about 39 years, resident of D-79 Sharda Regency, Siwad Area, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Urban Development through the Principal Secretary, Uraban Housing and Development Department, Secretariat Jaipur 2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur 3. The Commissioner, Moti Dungari Zone, Ghat Gate, Near Sophia School, Jaipur 4. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Ramdhan Sharma aged about 80 years resident of 25, Janpath Shyam Nagar Jaipur 5. Ravi Mathur S/o Shri R.B. Mathur aged about 55 years resident of A-8 Shyam Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sarthak Rastogi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Shashi Sharma for NP No.4 Ms. Sonal Singh for Mr. Alok Garg Mr. Ramesh Chandra Jangid for Mr. Harish Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/02/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred by petitioner, raising a grievance to use the basement of residential building known as "Sharda Regency" situated at Bapu Nagar, Jaipur, to run commercial activities and prayer was made to stop continuation of commercial activities in the residential premises forthwith. 2. In response of writ petition, respondent No.4 filed reply to the writ petition stating inter alia that no commercial activities in [2025:RJ-JP:5964] (2 of 2) [CW-8519/2014] the basement premises in his possession were/ are carried out. It appears from the order-sheet dated 18.01.2024 that thereafter, respondent No.4 namely Rameshwar Prasad Sharma has passed away on 23.01.2022 and though this fact is well within the knowledge of petitioner, yet no steps have been taken to substitute his legal representatives in the present writ petition. 3. The present writ petition is pending before this Court since 30.07.2014 and petitioner has not placed any material on record about using the basement premises of a residential building for running commercial activities, during this period of about ten years. There is reasonable ground to believe, more particularly in the light of reply filed by respondent No.4, that grievance raised by petitioner does not survive with passage of time. 4. In such view of the matter, there is no purpose to keep the present writ petition pending for further adjudication, however, petitioner would be at liberty to raise his grievance again in accordance with law, if fresh cause of action arises. 5. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/52