Daily order disposing a writ contempt petition where the High Court held there was no willful disobedience by the respondent Commission, noting the petitioner failed to act on prior information regarding a missing answer-sentence.
Notices issued to the respondents No. 1 and 2 were discharged.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 10/2015
Ram Kishan S?o Shri Hira Ram, aged 33 years, R/o Chak 2 KJD, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KR Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh for Mr. Tarun Joshi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
15/11/2018
The present contempt petition has been fled by the petitioner inter alia alleging that the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 14.05.2013, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5169/2013.
It will not be out of context to reproduce the relevant directions :-
“In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation within a period of one week from the date receiving certified copy of order and the respondent Commission is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner after taking into
(2 of 3)
[WCP-10/2015]
consideration all the facts for declaring result within two weeks, thereafter.”
It is not in dispute that pursuant to the petitioner’s
representation, which was filed on 20.05.2013, the respondents have issued a communication dated 07.11.2013, informing that the petitioner’s answer-sheet of General Science-I was not traceable with respondent – Commission. It has also been intimated that the petitioner had secured 89.12 marks in Social Science and cut-off for the petitioner’s category was 277.55 marks.
A perusal of said communication dated 07.11.2013 reveals that the respondent – Commission has also made it clear that if he files any representation, he may approach the Commission on 14.11.2013.
Admittedly, the petitioner instead of approaching the respondent – Commission on 14.11.2013, has approached this Court praying to punish the respondents.
It is a matter of great concern and shock that the petitioner’s answer-sheet for General Science (compulsory) is not available with the respondent – Commission.
The selection in question relates to year-2008 and the respondent – Commission had informed the petitioner about factum of missing of his answer-sheet in November-2013, yet the petitioner has not taken any steps for redressal of his grievance, if remained or persisted after Communication dated 07.11.2013.
In considered opinion of this Court, pursuant to the order dated 14.05.2013, the Commission was enjoined to decide the petitioner’s representation and declare the result; which has been
(3 of 3)
[WCP-10/2015]
done by the Commission, vide the communication dated 07.11.2013 in the possible manner.
In facts peculiar to this case, I do not find any willful disobedience on the part of the respondent - Commission, for which the notices issued to the respondents No.1 & 2 are discharged.
The contempt petition stands disposed of for statistical
purposes.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Himanshu/-16
Ram Kishan Shri Hira Ram
Ghanshyam Tilwani
Dr. Lalit K. Panwar
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
