Dismissed

Gram Panchayt, Potla v. Prahlad Kumar Khatik and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2008CW/2130/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constituent bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a District Collector's order. The Collector had remanded a matter to the Administrative Committee due to lack of hearing to the legal heirs of a deceased party. The Court found no error in remanding the case and directed the Committee to decide it within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Administrative Committee directed to decide the case within six months after impleading all legal heirs.

Gram Panchayt, Potla Vs Prahlad Kumar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2130/2008 GRAM PANCHAYAT, POTLA V.

¶3

PRAHLAD KUMAR KHATIK & OTHERS.

¶4

DATE OF ORDER ::: 01/04/2008

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI

¶6

Mr. S.Saruparia, for Petitioner (s).

¶7

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.08.2007, whereby the District Collector, Bhilwara, while accepting the revision petition, remanded the matter back to the Administrative Committee, looking to the fact that the order dated 23.12.1999 was not passed after providing due opportunity of hearing to the party-concerned.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the perusal of the order dated 16.10.99 and 18.11.99 reveal that after the death of Banshilal, his son – Prahlad Kumar came in the proceeding at his own and prayed for final arguments of the case and, thereby, the decision dated 23.12.1999 could not have been set aside by the Collector. Perusal of the order-sheets dated 16.10.99 and 18.11.99 at

¶9

¶10

Annexure-6 shows that Banshilal, having died, his legal

¶11

representatives were ordered to be brought on record, but, surprisingly, on 18.11.99, only one son Prahlad Kumar was brought on record and the matter was ordered to heard finally, whereas Ex.P-5 shows that Banshilal had left four sons and two daughters behind him and, on the death of Banshilal, all the legal heirs were required to be brought on record, but there is total failure of the petitioner to do so. In view of this fact only, the order dated 23.12.99 deserves to be set aside. The other reason given by the Collector, in any case, is that the order impugned is nothing but a remand order for the reasons given therein. The prayer of the petitioner is also that if the order under-challenge is maintained by this Court, a direction should be given to decide the matter by the Committee expeditiously.

¶12

Looking to the facts mentioned above and the material on record, it comes out that Banshilal died and this fact was brought to the notice of the Committee and, thereby, the petitioner was required to bring his legal heirs on record. However, there is a total failure on the part of the petitioner

¶13

¶14

to do so and in the presence of only one son, the matter could not have been decided. Thus, apart from the reasons given by the Collector in the impugned order, the matter needs to be remanded on the issue discussed above. When Banshilal died, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to bring his legal heirs on record, more so when Banshilal had left four sons and two daughters behind him, therefore, the order dated 23.12.99 has been passed behind back of legal heirs, therefore, in my opinion the said order has rightly been set aside with a direction to hear the case after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned in accordance with law. The outcome of the direction is that the matter should be heard finally after providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal heirs of Banshilal also.

¶15

In view of the above, I do not find any error in the impugned order, hence the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed, having no merit therein. However, the Administrative Committee is directed to decide the case expeditiously and, for that purposes, effort should be made, so that the matter is decided within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It goes without

¶16

¶17

saying that the petitioner will take necessary action for bringing all the legal heirs of Banshilal on record so that the matter is decided after hearing all the parties concerned.

¶18

The learned counsel further submits that though order Annexure-11 dated 20.11.2006 has also been challenged herein however at this stage he is not pressing the same but his right may be kept reserve for challenging the said order on passing of the final order by the Administrative Committee, if at all it goes against the petitioner. The liberty so prayed for is granted. If the Administrative Committee finally decides the matter against the petitioner, it would be open for the petitioner to challenge the said order along with the order dated 20.11.2006 as it will otherwise merge in the final order.

¶19

scd

¶20

¶21

Gram Panchayt, Potla v. Prahlad Kumar Khatik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayt, Potla v. Prahlad Kumar Khatik and Ors.

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

Jai Singh Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Marudher Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs Raj.State Coop.App. Tri.,Jaipur and Ors.

Shrinath Vs Harish and Anr.

Nar Singh Vs State and Anr.

Manager, Atlanta Infr. Ltd., Udaipur Vs Judge, Labour Court Udaipur and Anr.

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Varju Devi and Ors.