{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPL. APPEAL (WRIT) NO.649/2009 Rajendra Kanwalada & Ors. VS. Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. Date of Judgment : 22.12.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Pappu Sangwa, for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Bhati, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra court appeal filed by the applicants of Misc. Application No.7562/2009 filed in Writ Petition No.1039/2008 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1951 against an interim order dt. 26.5.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's misc. application. So the question arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether Single Judge was justified in dismissing the misc. application of appellants? 3. Facts of the case are these. 4. In a pending writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 { 2 } against the Respondent No.2, 3 and 4, (State Authorities- Mining Department) in respect of certain mining dispute between the writ petitioner and the State Authorities (Mining Department), the present appellants moved an application for becoming party respondent in the writ petition. According to them, they too have certain interest in the mining area qua writ petitioner and hence they have moved an application for becoming party in this writ petition to safeguard their interest. It is this application, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge (Writ Court) by impugned order, which has given rise to filing of this intra court appeal by the applicants of intervention application reiterating their prayer in this appeal for becoming a party respondent in the writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arises. 5. This is what the Writ Court held while dismissing the appellants' application in a pending writ petition and declined to allow them to become party respondent in the writ petition. “By an application being I.A. No.7562/09, the applicants seek to implead as party respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are Khatedar tenant of the land. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner does ot seek to excavate the mineral from the area of the Khatedari land of the applicants unless the petitioner obtains their consent in writing and presently do not seek any relief against the applicants. It has further been stated that the petitioner is not steeping upon any right of the { 3 } applicants who are enjoying full right of owning their property and using the same. In the circumstances therefore, when no relief is prayed against the applicants, in my view, the applicants are not necessary party. The application is accordingly dismissed.” 6. Without going into the question as to whether intra court appeal lies against such order and whether applicant had a right of appeal and further without going into much factual matrix of the writ petition in detail, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the appellants' intervention application made for becoming party respondent in a writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 against the Respondent No.2, 3 and 4. In our view, the reasoning given by the Single Judge quoted supra is proper and hence does not call for any interference. 7. When the writ petitioner did not claim any relief against the appellant nor he can otherwise claim any such relief against any private party in the writ petition which is maintainable only against the State and its authorities, then we fail to appreciate as to why and on what basis, the appellants can claim any indulgence in this litigation. That apart, the Writ Court is not meant to decide the disputes inter- se private parties and hence the remedy of the appellants, lie in some other forum as against the writ petitioner but not in writ jurisdiction for getting his rights determined. 8. In our opinion, the Writ Court is only entitled to examine the action of the State in relation to the subject matter of dispute raised by the writ petitioner in his writ petition out of which this appeal arise keeping in view the parameters prescribed for deciding the writ under Article 226 { 4 } of the Constitution and the law, which governs the dispute raised therein. It cannot travel beyond this for deciding the rights of private parties inter-se. In other words, the scope of the writ petition is confined to only legal issues centers around the controversy on admitted facts qua State action and not beyond it. 9. The aforesaid discussion in our opinion is more than sufficient to dismiss this appeal and uphold the impugned interim order. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants wanted us to examine the entire factual background of case including the rights of the appellant and writ petitioner attached to the land in question but we cannot undertake any such factual inquiry in this matter. It is neither permissible nor called for. 11. While parting with the case, we consider it proper to observe that any decision that may be rendered in the writ petition would not affect the rights of the appellants if they have any or if they claim to have any and they will be free to raise their grievance in appropriate forum as against any of the parties to the writ petition as and when occasion arise for him to seek adjudication of his rights. 12. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /tarun/