[2025:RJ-JP:3241-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 24/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18148/2024 Govind Dayama, S/o. Late Shri Dwarka Prasad Dayama, Aged About 47 Years, Proprietor, Govindam Samaroh Isthal, Near Petrol Pump, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus 1. Ajmer Development Authority, Through The Authorized Officer/dy. Commissioner, Ajmer. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mehta Advocate with Ms. Pallavi Mehta Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Singh Advocate with Mr. Praval Mishra Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment 22/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the appellant aggrieved on account of non-consideration of his application for stay against the order of seizure/closure of the marriage garden operated by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the seizure of the marriage garden and the action on the part of the respondents, apart from being illegal and arbitrary, suffers from [2025:RJ-JP:3241-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-24/2025] violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on substantial grounds, the appeal was filed by the appellant before the appellate authority along with an application for stay. Though the appeal was filed on 30.10.2024, appellate authority did not decide the application for stay within reasonable time. Therefore, the writ petition had to be filed by the appellant before this Court. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition without appreciating that the appellate authority was duty bound and obliged under the law to decide the application for stay as expeditiously as possible because the appellant is running a marriage garden and non-consideration of his stay application seriously prejudiced his fundamental right to carry on business. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the prima facie aspect of the case and found that there were serious allegations against the appellant in running the marriage garden without there being proper conversion orders and permissions. Learned counsel would further submit that as far as expeditious disposal of the application for stay and appeal is concerned, appropriate directions may be issued by this Court. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the appellant filed an appeal against the order of seizure of marriage garden raising substantial grounds including the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Having noticed this aspect of the matter, this Court, on the last date of hearing, i.e. 10.01.2025, directed the respondents to submit an affidavit along with the records, which have been filed and perused by us. [2025:RJ-JP:3241-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-24/2025] Without commenting upon the merits of the case, we find that the allegation of non-compliance of principles of natural justice is a serious issue which is required to be tried and this aspect would require detailed consideration by the appellate authority. Thus, this ground cannot be said to be completely frivolous, but requires serious consideration. 7. We are also of the view that once an appeal was filed by the appellant on 30.10.2024 along with an application for stay, the appellate authority ought to have considered the application for stay as expeditiously as possible. It is for this reason that when the stay application was kept pending, the appellant had to file writ petition before this Court. Though, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appellant had given an undertaking that the appellant would not be taking any booking after 23.10.2024, we find that such undertaking does not take away the right of the appellant to challenge the action of the respondents by taking recourse to the remedy of appeal available to him under the law. In fact, the appellant has filed appeal along with an application for stay. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the appellate authority to consider the application for stay expeditiously. 8. We are informed that the appellant subsequently has taken some more bookings and the marriage garden is already booked for solemnisation of two marriages on 24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid materials on record and the circumstances, in our discretion, we are inclined to modify the [2025:RJ-JP:3241-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-24/2025] order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the observations made in that order on the merits of the case shall not have any bearing on the consideration of application for stay. Further, we are also inclined to direct the appellate authority to decide the application for stay within a period of three weeks and if possible, to decide the appeal itself within two months. Moreover, we are inclined to allow the appellant to allow marriage garden to be used for the purpose of solemnisation of marriages on 24.01.2025 and 25.01.2025 with the clear direction that thereafter, no booking shall be allowed unless there is a relief granted in favour of the appellant in the appellate proceedings. Any attempt on the part of the appellant in taking booking after 25.01.2025 shall be treated as an act of contempt. 10. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed off. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ MANOJ NARWANI-SUNITA /139