Dismissed

Vivekanand Pub. Shik. Sansthan v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2018CW/8070/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner institute challenged the respondents' failure to release a sanctioned grant of Rs. 4 lacs and the seizure of bank accounts, alleging forged documents were not revealed. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the State had lodged an FIR against the petitioner's Secretary for forgery and declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vivekanand Pub. Shik. Sansthan Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8070/2008

¶3

Vivekanand Public Shikshan Sansthan, Eidra, Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh through its Secretary Shri Gopal Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh Rao, by caste Rao aged 35 years, R/o Khardevla, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development Department Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The District Collector, Chittorgarh.

¶8

The Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh (Rural Development Cell) through its Chief Executive Officer.

¶9

The Bank of Baroda, Branch Chittorgarh through its Branch Manager.

¶10

The Bank of Rajasthan Limited Badi Sadri District Chittorgarh through its Branch Manager.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi For Respondent(s) : None present

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶14

Order

¶15

03/12/2018

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶17

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents No.1 to 3 be directed to issue necessary orders/instructions to respondents No.4 & 5 for making payment of Rs. 4 lacs to petitioner; b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the act of Respondent No.3 in issuing direction to respondent No.4 for stopping payment of Rs.4 lacs under Cheque No.456016 to petitioner be declared illegal & the Respondents No.4 and 5 be directed to release amount of Rs.4 lacs and to make payment to petitioner;

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-8070/2008]

¶20

c) any other appropriate writ, order or direction they may be deemed expedient for the end of justice, may be issued; and d) Costs be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have sanctioned ₹ 10,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner-Institute for construction of a hostel. The said amount was sanctioned vide order dated 04.01.2006. Counsel further submits that the respondents without showing any reason seized the bank account of the petitioner-Institute vide order dated 19.02.2007 and stopped the payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- in favour of the petitionerInstitute without issuing any reasons.

¶22

None present on behalf of the respondents despite service. According to reply submitted on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 that an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was got sanctioned in the name of hostel of the petitioner-Institute and the said amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- was received by Shri. Virendra Singh Charan while he was the working Secretary of the petitioner-Institute. It has been further stated that the respondents have sanctioned an amount for construction of hostel and later on it came to know that the said sanction has been granted on the basis of forged documents submitted by the petitioner-Institute and the respondents have also lodged an FIR in this regard bearing No.326/2006 dated 03.07.2006 against the Secretary of the petitioner Institute.

¶23

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

¶24

The present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons:

¶25

(a) Firstly, according to reply submitted by the respondents, the petitioner-Institute has received the amount of grant from the

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-8070/2008]

¶28

State Government by submitting the forged documents and the respondents have lodged an FIR in this regard against the Secretary of the petitioner-Institute.

¶29

(b) Secondly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a matter.

¶30

In that view of the matter, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

¶31

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶32

84-Arvind/-

Vivekanand Pub. Shik. Sansthan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vivekanand Pub. Shik. Sansthan v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kuldeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaina Ram Vs State and Ors.

Deepak Saini Vs Managing Director

Priyanka Kalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Surender Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Jodha Vs State of Rajasthan