Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) BOTH the aforesaid special appeals are being decided by this common judgment as the question involved is the same in both the appeals.
(2.) SO far as the DBSAW No.404/2002 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the UIT, Bikaner against the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.2105/2001 dated 6.5.2002 whereby the Single Bench of this Court has allowed the respondent's writ petition. In SBCWP No.2105/2001 single bench of this court held that if the weigh-bridge is allowed to continue at the disputed plots without putting the residents of the Agrasen Colony to harassment and without making any encroachment on part of 100' road then the petitioner if pays conversion charges to the UIT, Bikaner then the weigh-bridge shall not be removed by the respondent UIT. Four residents of the Agrasen Colony being aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Bench of this court preferred DBSAW No.448/2002 raising their grievance against the weigh-bridge established by the respondent ? writ petitioner. Nobody appeared for the respondent ? writ petitioner in spite of service, hence, learned counsel for the appellant UIT was heard. According to learned counsel for the appellant ? UIT for establishing the weigh-bridge there are rules, which have not been taken care of while ordering that in case, the writ petitioner deposits the conversion charges with the UIT and writ petitioner will not use any part of 100' road, then his weigh-bridge may not be removed. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the weigh-bridge has been established in the residential colony and if said weigh-bridge will be allowed to continue then heavy vehicles will come in the residential area because weigh-bridge is meant only for heavy vehicles weighing. It is also submitted that for establishing weigh-bridge, the petitioner was required to get the land converted into industrial land under the relevant rules, which has not been done. It is also submitted that residents of the Agrasen colony have raised the objection against the petitioner's weigh-bridge.
(3.) WE perused the judgment passed by the Single Bench of this Court dated 6.5.2002 and found that the learned Single Judge even after holding that the plot in question over which the weigh-bridge has been established is situated in the residential colony known as Agrasen Colony, yet restrained the appellant ? UIT from removing the weigh- bridge and that too under assumption that residents of the area concerned have no objection against the weigh- bridge, whereas the residents of the Agrasen Colony have already challenged the judgment dated 6.5.2002 by preferring DBSAW No.448/2002 and in the facts and circumstances of the case we found that for passing order effecting the rights of the residents of Agrasen colony, they should be given an opportunity and since now the residents of Agrasen colony have already challenged the judgment of this court dated 6.5.2002 by filing DBSAW No.448/2002 then it is all the more necessary that they be given opportunity to submit reply to the writ petition. In addition to above, since the relevant clause has not been examined before passing the order restraining the appellant ? UIT from removing the weigh-bridge from the residential colony, therefore also, the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Single Bench so that the matter may be heard afresh and writ petition may be decided in accordance with law. Consequently, both the special appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 6.5.2002 is set aside and the writ petition being SBCWP No.2105/2001 is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of filing reply and hearing to appellants of DBSAW No.448/2002. ;