Ajay Shivpuri v. State of Rajasthan, 2025
The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the need for permissions from all relevant authorities before permitting commercial activities in residential areas.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
30 August 2025
Judges
Justice Sameer Jain
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner challenged the State Government’s order permitting the installation of a dairy booth outside his private residence in Jaipur.
-
The petitioner alleged that many such dairy booths are in fact operating as wholesale kirana shops or small restaurants, thus altering the nature of the locality.
-
The installation of the booth was allowed without obtaining No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from crucial departments like electricity, police, and PWD.
-
The petitioner claimed that the operation of such shops adversely affected his privacy and quality of life.
Issues
-
Whether the installation of the dairy booth without the required NOCs violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21?
-
Whether the operation of these booths as commercial shops amounted to a public nuisance under Section 152 BNSS?
-
Whether the existing guidelines and permissions for such installations were adequate or required stricter scrutiny?
-
Whether judicial intervention was necessary to protect the petitioner’s right to privacy and maintain the peaceful residential environment?
Held
-
The installation of the dairy booth without proper clearances was held to be potentially unlawful and a cause of public nuisance.
-
The appointment of a Court Commissioner was deemed necessary to ensure a fact-based, impartial evaluation of the issues.
-
The stay order was justified to protect the petitioner’s privacy and quality of life pending further investigation.
-
The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the need for permissions from all relevant authorities before permitting commercial activities in residential areas.
Analysis
-
The Court struck a balance between administrative action and constitutional rights, specifically protecting the petitioner’s right to privacy and peaceful environment.
-
It underscored that Section 152 BNSS empowers removal of public nuisances, and that operating commercial entities disguised as dairies can qualify as such.
-
The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance, including obtaining necessary NOCs from all concerned departments.
-
By appointing a Court Commissioner, the Court ensured a thorough fact-finding process which aids in making informed judicial decisions.
-
The stay on installation serves as a protective measure to prevent irreparable harm while the investigation is underway.
-
Overall, the ruling reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights against administrative overreach and protecting the residential character of neighborhoods.