Remanded

Rajendra Singh v. State

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2006CW/4504/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan quashed an order dismissing three appeals because the Deputy Secretary (Mines) fixed a hearing date via telephone without serving formal notice. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing with mandatory directions to issue proper notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Deputy Secretary (Mines) for fresh hearing of appeals within three months.

Rajendra Singh Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2006)

¶1

-:1:-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

1.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4503/1999.

¶5

Rajendra Singh Kachchawa. VERSUS State of Raj. & Others.
2.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4504/1999.
Rajendra Singh Kachchawa. VERSUS State of Raj. & Others.
3.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4526/1999.
Rajendra Singh Kachchawa. VERSUS State of Raj. & Others.

¶6

01.11.2006.

¶7

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH

¶8

Mrs.Richa Pareek, for the petitioner.
Mr.B.K.Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

¶9

*****

¶10

These three writ petitions are directed against the
order passed by the Deputy Secretary (Mines) in the three
appeals filed by the petitioner which were decided by a
common order dated 26.07.1996.

¶11

The appeals were filed by the petitioner in which no
date was fixed, as is evident from the impugned order
itself. The Deputy Secretary (Mines)has recorded in the
order dated 26.07.1996 as under :-

¶12

“ इस संबंध मे िदनांक 12.8.96 को दरभाष पर पाट� को सूिचत कर अिधशुल्कु िनधा र ्ण हेतु बुलाया गया तो अपीलांट ने दरभाष पर ही यह कहा गया िक उन्हें सुनवाईु का मौका नहीं चािहए तथा रेकाडर् के आधार पर अिधशुल्क िनधा र ्ण िकया जावें अपीलांट को अिधशुल्क िनधा र ्ण करने से पूवर् सुनवाई का अवसर िदया गया तथा उनके मना करने पर ही ःविववेक से अपीलांट �ारा ूःतुत िववरण के आधार पर अिन्तम आदेश िदनांक 13.8.96 को जारी िकये है अतः अपील खािरज की जावें ।

¶13

बहस सुनी गई एंव सहायक खिन अिभयन्ता से ू� पदवार िदया व सम्बिन्धत िरकाडर् का अवलोकन कर िववेचन िकया गया । सहायक खिन अिभयन्ता सोजत िसटी �ारा तीनों मामलों में आदेश पािरत करने से पूवर् पाट� को नोिटस देकर िरकाडर् मंगवाया तथा िरकाडर् के आधार पर रायल्टी िनधा र ्ण िकया गया ह� तीनों मामलों के त�य समान होने तथा पाट� भी एक होने से एक साथ बहस सुनी गई िरकाडर् के अवलोकन से ःप� है िक

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

पाट� को पूणर् मौका देने एवं पाट� �ारा ूःतुत िरकाडर् से सन्तु� नही होने के उपरान्त सहायक खिन अिभयन्ता सोजत िसटी �ारा बेःट जजमेनट के आधार पर अिधशुल्क िनधा र ्ण िकया गया है । अतः अितिर� िनदेशक , खान , जोधपुर के आदेश िदनांक 2.6.97 में हःत्षेप करना आवँयक नही है । तीनों अपीले खािरज की जाती है।"

¶16

Admittedly, in this case, notice for fixing the date
was not given and as per the statement of fact, as
mentioned in the impugned order, only telephonicaly the
petitioner is alleged to have been informed about the
hearing of the case.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances, this does not appear
to be a proper procedure which has been followed by the
Deputy Secretary for fixing a date for hearing the appeal.
There can be no record as to whether the appellant received
the notice or not. On filing the appeal, either the date
should be fixed in the presence of the parties or if no
date is fixed then a notice should be issued fixing the
date of hearing of the appeal which after return of service
must be kept on record.

¶18

In the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is
set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Secretary
(Mine) for hearing the appeal afresh and decide the same
within three months of the submission of the certified copy
of this order. The petitioner is directed to appear before
the Deputy Secretary (Mine) for hearing of the three
appeals on 27.11.2006 for which no fresh notice shall be
issued to the parties.

¶19

The writ petition as well as the stay application
stand disposed of.

¶20

(DALIP SINGH),J.

¶21

Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.

Rajendra Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Dan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Abdul Rehman Vs State and Ors.

Smt Radha Bai and Ors. Vs the B O R Ajmer and Ors.

Jagdish Narayan and Ors. Vs Additional Collector Third J

Rajendra Singh Vs State and Ors.

Richpal Singh Vs State