Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26988 (RAJ)

FASHION FLARE A PARTNERSHIP v. HINDUSTAN COOPER LTD AND ORS

CW/5414/2011 · 2025-02-05

Avneesh Jhingan, Pramil Kumar Mathur

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:5176-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5414/2011 Fashion Flare A Partnership Firm Having Its Registered Office At A-189, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110 020 represented through its representative Shri Raj Kumar S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged about 37 Years R/o 186/1, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hindustan Copper Limited Represented Through Its Managing Director Tamra Bhawan, I, Ashutosh Choudhary Avenue Kolkatta 700019. 2. Shri N.K. Bhakat Engineer Incharge-SNT, Hindustan Copper Limited, 23, kherti Complex, khetari Nagar, district Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Bhargava for Mr. Ajeet Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kapil Vyas Mr. Harsh Vardhan Katara for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 05/02/2025 1. This petition was filed seeking directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to carry-on work of lifting waste material as per contract. 2. There was dispute amongst the parties with regard to payment of royalty and development charges to the Government of Rajasthan. The connected matter i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:5176-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5414/2011] No.1951/2011 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 03.01.2024 by passing the following order. “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the subsequent developments during pendency of the writ petition, no cause of action survives for pursuing the petition. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.” 3. This writ petition has been rendered infructuous with the efflux of time as the VAT regime has come to an end and the contract period must have ended by now. 4. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. 5. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for revival in case cause of action still survives. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/Sunita/10