M/S Sunny Traders vs. Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a representation before the competent authority. The Court directed that the competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. The reasoning behind this decision is that the petitioner, through their counsel, explicitly requested this course of action without pressing the merits of the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that when a party before a High Court, in a writ petition, chooses not to argue the merits and instead seeks liberty to approach the administrative authority with a representation, the court may grant such liberty and direct the authority to decide the representation in accordance with law. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and for the competent authority to decide it.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sunny Traders, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The respondents were various authorities within the Public Health Engineering Department of the State of Rajasthan and the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner sought a specific order or relief from the court. However, during the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner, without arguing the merits of the case, requested permission to file a representation before the competent authority. The court considered this submission and proceeded to dispose of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file a representation before the competent authority, given that the petitioner chose not to argue the merits of the case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that they wished to pursue the matter by filing a representation before the competent authority and therefore sought liberty to do so. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondents regarding the petitioner's request to file a representation. The respondents were represented by an Additional Advocate General and a counsel, but their arguments on this specific point are not detailed.