1 S/18 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7690/2010 Surjeet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 11th November 2010. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.B.S.Sandhu for the petitioners Mr.L.K.Purohit for the respondents <><><> BY THE COURT: This petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus essentially for directions to the respondents to decide the application moved by the petitioners for transfer of 8 bighas and 10 biswas of fruit orchard land from square Nos.13 & 14 to Square No.5 of Chak 25 PS (A). The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to the effect that the respondents have unnecessarily kept the application moved by the petitioners pending, despite having dealt with and granted other similar nature applications. It is submitted that the respondents deserve to be directed to take a decision on the application moved by the petitioners without delay. The prayer so made has been put to opposition on behalf of the respondents with the submissions that the land in question had been converted to residential use and roads have been constructed thereat; and that disentitlement of the petitioners for such transfer is apparent from the documents filed with this petition. It is further submitted that the petitioners did file a civil suit earlier for the same nature reliefs and after having been unsuccessful in obtaining temporary injunction from the Trial Court and from the Appellate Court, they filed a writ petition that was withdrawn and then, the suit 2 itself was withdrawn and thereafter this writ petition has been filed. With reference to the decisions of this Court in J.S.Rawat Vs. National Air Port Authority & Ors.: 1991 (1) RLR 210 and Munna Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: 2004 (2) DNJ 825, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled to maintain this writ petition after having taken a chance before the Civil Court and having failed to obtain relief therein. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not been forthright in their submissions and this petition has been filed by the power of attorney holder without filing the copy of power of attorney. So far last submission is concerned, the same has only been noted to be rejected. A copy of power of attorney executed on 29.07.2010 by the petitioners has been filed on record of this writ petition. So far the submissions regarding filing of the civil suit and the application for temporary injunction are concerned, true it is that ordinarily a litigant is not permitted to go on forum hunting and such propositions of taking chance before the Civil Court and on being unsuccessful, invoking writ jurisdiction are not countenanced but in the present case, it is noticed that the civil suit was withdrawn by the petitioners on 09.08.2010 while making submissions before the Trial Court that they wanted to file a writ petition before the High Court and the Trial Court permitted such withdrawal. Moreover, the petitioners have confined the prayer herein only to the extent that their pending application be decided and have not otherwise made any such attempt so as to seek an interim relief contrary to the order passed by the Civil Court refusing the prayer for temporary injunction. 3 In the given set of facts and circumstances and on the basis of decisions as referred by the learned counsel for the respondents, a case for rejection of this writ petition altogether is not made out. Though the respondents have attempted to challenge the right and entitlement of the petitioners to seek such transfer but without going into the merits and demerits of the case in this petition, suffice is to say that seriously questionable it is as to why the application as made by the petitioners has not been finally disposed of by the respondents and as to why the same has been kept pending? So far the limited prayer as made before this Court is concerned, a clear case for issuance of directions for decision on the application in accordance with law is made out and there appears no reason as to why the respondents should avoid to take final decision on the pending application. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents are directed to take final decision, forthwith and without further delay, on the application for transfer as moved by the petitioners. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK