Jai Kumar Sharma and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. parihar, j.1. petitioner has challenged the notice dated 30.1.2003 issued by respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to remove encroachment from the road, specifying the same in the notice. it has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in spite of temporary injunction been granted by trial court, the notice has been issued by the respondent no. 2.2. after having considered entire facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has already approached and availed a remedy of filing a suit before the trial court and some interim orders have also been passed, no interference is called for by this court under its writ jurisdiction in the present matter. even otherwise the courts should not be a party encourage encroachment on the public land, more specifically the roads and lanes. by passing interim orders in such matters would only lower down the image of the courts. even any efforts are made by public authorities to regularise such unauthorised constructions, the same are highly depricable.3. the writ' petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merit. copy of this order may also be sent to respondents immediately.