Disposed

Giriraj Prasad Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2016CW/18369/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order disposing of a writ petition where the petitioner failed to file comprehensive instructions due to inability to contact. Court directed petitioner to approach respondent authorities with a complete representation for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address comprehensive representation. Competent authority directed to decide within 12 weeks.

Giriraj Prasad Agarwal Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18369/2013

¶3

GIRIRAJ PRASAD AGARWAL S/O SHRI PHOOL CHAND AGARWAL, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.722, VIDHYADHAR KA RASTA, CHOKRI VISHVASHWARJI, DISTRICT JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).

¶4

.....PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, RAJASTHAN JAIPUR.

¶7

2.THE COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN.

¶8

3.THE SECRETARY, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JLN MARG, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).

¶9

4.PAWAN KHANDELWAL RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.722, VIDHYADHAR KA RASTA, CHOKRI VISHVASHWARJI, DISTRICT – JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).

¶10

5.DAMADHAR AGARWAL S/O BANSIDHAR, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.722, VIDHYADHAR KA RASTA, CHOKRI VISHVASHWARJI, DISTRICT – JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).

¶11

6.SITA DEVI W/O DAMODHAR AGARWAL, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.722, VIDHYADHAR KA RASTA, CHOKRI VISHVASHWARJI, DISTRICT – JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN).

¶12

¶13

Date of Order :: 14.09.2016

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶15

Ms. Neetu Bhansali for Mr. Amit Jindal for petitioner.

¶16

<><><>

¶17

Despite opportunity granted to the learned counsel to complete her instructions as to any proceedings initiated by the petitioner before the competent authority, she pleads no instructions for she could not

¶18

contact the petitioner despite her best efforts.

¶19

Learned counsel further submits that at this stage, she would be satisfied, if the official respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, which he is ready and willing to address.

¶20

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the State-respondents within two weeks hereinafter.

¶21

In case, a representation is so addressed, the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible preferably within 12 weeks from the date a representation is presentation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶22

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stand disposed off.

¶23

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.

¶24

Item No.30 Solanki Sunil

Giriraj Prasad Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giriraj Prasad Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Hanuman Prasad and Ors. Vs R S E B and Ors.

Mahesh Chand Modi Vs the Rajasthan State Cooperativ

Sushil Kumar Sarawagi Vs the Sub Registrar Co. Operative

Jai Ram Gurjar Vs State Medical and Healthors

Dashrath Singh Shekhawat Vs R P S C Ajmer

Jagdish Kumar Vs R P S C Ajmer andANR