The High Court held the argument resolved by prior precedents. It directed the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation, instructing respondent authorities to decide it via a reasoned order within two months.
Petitioner to address comprehensive representation; State-respondents to decide within two months via reasoned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 5388/2018
Santosh Wife Of Shri Vijendra, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 57, Green Park-B, Nangal Jesa Bohra, Dadi Ka Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.) Constable No. 164, Present Posting R.p.a., Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
13/03/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 5472/1995, decided on 29th August, 1997, which was also referred to and relied upon in another writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 12014/2015: Manak Ram & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., which was disposed off on 24th April, 2017, in the backdrop of the order dated 29th August, 1997.
(2 of 2)
[CW-5388/2018]
It is further urged that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Manak Ram & Ors. (supra).
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law so also in the light of the orders dated 29th August, 1997 and 24th April, 2017 passed in the cases referred to above. However, in no case later than two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/161
1 issue framed by the court
whether the controversy raised in the instant writ application is resolved by previous adjudications and if directions should be issued to dispose of the representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 5472/1995Referred¶15
Manak Ram & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶15
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 12014/2015: Manak Ram & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Santosh
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Finance
Secretary (Home), Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan
Director General Of Police, Rajasthan
Deputy Director, Rajasthan Police Academy
VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
