Dismissed

Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2017WMAP/139/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a miscellaneous application seeking recall of an order reserving liberty to file representations. The court observed that the underlying judgment was not reviewed, rendering the current application maintainable only if the liberty application is instituted afresh in view of the prevailing judgment.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order reserving liberty is rejected; liberty granted to institute fresh application later.

Bahadur Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 139 / 2016

¶3

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.53/2015

¶5

Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Rajput, aged about 50 years, r/o. Village and Post Kundera Doongar, Tehsil Sikari,

¶6

District Dausa.

¶7

Satya Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Har Sahay Sharma, aged about 47 years, R/o. Village and Post Gang-Dawari, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶8

Lallu Ram Sharma S/o Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, aged about 55 years, r/o Village and Post Faraspura, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶9

Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Bhonri Lal Jangid, aged about 52 years, R/o Village Ram Singhpura, Post Khatepura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.

¶10

Kajod Mal S/o Shri Ghamandi Gurjar, aged about 53 years, R/o Village and Post Lanka, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶11

Lahari Ram S/o Devi Sahay, Aged about 60 years, R/o village Mothuka, Post Fatehpur, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶12

Jai Dayal S/o Shri Makkhan Ram, aged about 57 years, r/o Village Moondly, Post Hazipur, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar.

¶13

Bhonri Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Kalu Ram Bairwa, aged about 58 years, R/o village Manpur Doongari, Post Sheetala Mata, Tehsil

¶14

Chaksu, District Jaipur.

¶15

----Petitioners/Non-applicants

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Raj through its Principal Secretary, Forest Department Government Secretariate, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Van Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶19

Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department (Project at) Tonk.

¶20

Deputy Conservator of Forest, Forest Department, Dausa.

¶21

----Respondents/Applicants

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. P. Singh for Mr. Inderjeet Singh, AAG For Respondent(s) :

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Judgment / Order

(2 of 3)

[WMAP-139/2016]

24/01/2017

The applicant-respondents have instituted the present misc. application with a prayer for recall of the order dated 21^st May, 2015, made by this Court reserving liberty to the writ petitioners to address a representation to the State-respondents in the backdrop of the opinion of this Court in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3620/2008, at Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

Learned counsel, referring to the order dated 17^th November, 2016, pointed out that similar prayer was addressed in a batch of review petitions, lead case being S. B. Civil Review Petition No. 212/2016 (Hanuman Sahay & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.), which have been dismissed for the opinion in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. (supra), has not been reviewed, observing thus:

¶31

“In the light of the aforesaid and, as, at this stage, when the order in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. (supra) has not yet been reviewed. I do not find these review petitions to be maintainable. It is also for the reason that the State Government earlier complied the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. (supra) and, thereupon, filed the review petition thus all the review petitions are dismissed at this stage.

¶32

However, the respondents-applicants would be at liberty to file review petition/s afresh, if the judgment in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. (supra) is reviewed and the State Government finds complications in the matter.

¶33

A copy of this order be placed in each connected file."

¶34

(3 of 3)

¶35

[WMAP-139/2016]

¶36

In view of the above, the instant misc. application merits

¶37

rejection.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

However, the applicants would be at liberty to institute application afresh in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Dev Krishna Daroga & Ors. (supra).

¶40

In view of the order made on misc. application (IA No. 21952/2016), under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, also stands closed.

¶41

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶42

Pooja/57

Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omprakash and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board Vs Asst Provident Fund Commi

Smt Ruksar Bano and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sitaram Bagda Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rameshwar Prasad Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sharif Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.