Sikkim High Court
WP(C)/39/2021 of Rajendra Roy Vs State of Sikkim and Ors. on 9 August 2023
COURT OF SIKKIM Record of proceedings I.A. No. 04 of 2023 Arising out of W. P. (C) No.39 of 2021 RAJENDRA ROY ……. PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. ……. RESPONDENTS Date: 20.10.2023 CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE For
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
I.A. No. 04 of 2023
Arising out of W. P. (C) No.39 of 2021
RAJENDRA ROY ……. PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF SIKKIM & ORS. ……. RESPONDENTS
Date: 20.10.2023
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
1. An application for clarification of Order dated 09.08.2023 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2021 finally disposing of the writ petition as infructuous has been filed by the applicants who were respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the W.P. (C) No. 39 of 2021.
2. According to the applicants vide Order dated 22.11.2021 passed in I.A. No. 01 of 2021 in the writ petition this Court had granted stay of suspension of license and permitted the petitioner to continue the trade in any free space in the Lall Bazaar road without causing any hindrance to anyone and directed respondent no.2 to designate a free space in Lall Bazaar road to the petitioner for the said purpose. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was relocated within Lall Bazaar area where he continued to do his business.
3. Subsequently, the hawkers’ license of the petitioner was renewed by the Gangtok Municipal Corporation which led to this Court holding that the writ petition had become infructuous.
4. The applicants now alleged that thereafter, the petitioner has returned to the same spot which continues hindering the business of the applicants.
5. It is submitted that the interim Order dated 22.11.2021 ought to be read harmoniously with the order dated 09.08.2023 disposing of the writ petition. It is thus submitted that a clarification is necessary of the Order dated 09.08.2023 as to whether the disposal of the writ petition give the petitioner the right to carry on his business from his earlier place where from he was relocated.
6. The disposal of the writ petition vide Order dated 09.08.2023 has brought an end the lis in the writ petition and the interim order passed therein merged with it. The Order dated 09.08.2023 was passed in the presence of all the parties including the present applicants. The Order dated 09.08.2023 is clear and requires no clarification as sought for by the applicants.
7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Judge