Partly allowed

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Chaju Ram Saini v. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, through Its Secretary

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2019WMAP/177/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order restored a dismissed writ petition subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs and compliance with earlier directions regarding service of notice.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration of the writ petition allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 costs and compliance with prior orders within two weeks.

What the court decided

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Chaju Ram Saini Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 177/2019

¶3

Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Chaju Ram Saini

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Through Its Secretary

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Giriraj Rajoria for Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA

¶10

Order

¶11

01/07/2019

¶12

Despite specific order made by this Court on 7^th August, 2018, on restoration application number 410/2018, observing thus:

¶13

“Matter comes up on the above noted restoration application, with a prayer for restoration of the writ application, which has been dismissed for want of noncompliance of peremptory order dated 20^th April, 2018. None appeared before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), on 15^th May, 2018.

¶14

Having considered the reasons detailed out in the memo of application, seeking restoration of the writ application; I find that the reasons are not very convincing. None is present on behalf of the applicant either even today. Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Advocate, made a request for an adjournment which would further delay the proceedings.

¶15

For the petitioner may not suffer for the lapses on the part of the counsel / his clerk; the restoration application is granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.

¶16

[WMAP-177/2019]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

1000/- (Rs. One thousand), which would be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur, within two weeks hereinafter.

¶19

Accordingly, order dated 20^th April, 2018, and 15^th May, 2018; are hereby recalled.

¶20

Writ petition is restored to its original number.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also do the needful to deposit process fee and take out notice for service on respondents, furnishing complete and correct address, within three weeks hereinafter.

¶22

Failure to do so, as aforesaid, would entail withdrawal of this order without further reference to the Court, with consequences to follow.”

¶23

Yet, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to do as directed vide order aforesaid.

¶24

Considering the fact that lapses on the part of the counsel would result into denial of the remedy to the petitioner. Hence, while I would grant the application for restoration; but, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees: Two Thousands), to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur, within two weeks hereinafter. Learned counsel would also ensure compliance of the directions made by this Court on 7^th August, 2018 (supra), within two weeks hereinafter.

¶25

Failure to do so would entail withdrawal of this order without further reference to the Court with consequences to follow.

¶26

(VEERENDRA SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶27

SUNIL SOLANKI /19/

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Chaju Ram Saini v. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Suresh Kumar Saini S/O Chaju Ram Saini v. Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board, through Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sayed Vs State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology

M/S Marda Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Shyam Vihar Vikas Samiti Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Nati Bai W/O Ramkishan Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

Manoj Kumar S/O Ramcharan Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited

R.P. Meena S/O Shri S.L. Meena Vs Union of India