Allowed

Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2019WRW/186/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged an order granting benefit to the petitioner where the respondents claimed no consent was submitted. The court found the original order opposed recorded evidence, noted the discrepancy in submissions between the original hearing and current review, and determined an error had crept in.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 2.11.2017 is recalled. The Writ Petition is remanded for fresh arguments on merits.

Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.186/2018

¶3

Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, R/o House No. 8-B, Vishva Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jaipur.

¶7

University Of Rajasthan Through Its Deputy Registrar (Institute-2), Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Zakir Hussain, Addl. GC. For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajit Maloo.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/12/2019

¶13

The matter comes up on review petition filed by the respondents to the writ petition stating that the order dated 2.11.2017 deserves to be recalled as there was no directions issued by the respondents to his Officer-Incharge to give consent. It has also been stated at bar that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the concerned Officer-Incharge.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as grant of benefit given by the court in its order dated 2.11.2017 is concerned, the same is in accordance with law and there has been no concealment on the part of the petitioner.

¶15

I have considered the submission and noticed the order dated 2.11.2017. The order passed by this court which is under

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[WRW-186/2018]

¶18

review starts with line that “learned counsel for the parties are not in dispute on the proposition.” It further observes that “in view of the joint statement made by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition merits accepted.”

¶19

The aforesaid two statements recorded by the court on 2.11.2017 are contrary to the submissions raised by the review petitioner i.e. respondents who have stated that no such consent was submitted. I have also gone through the reply filed to the writ petition wherein the respondents have not given any consent but have contested the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the court is required to examine the merits of the case afresh and deal with the respective averments made by the petitioner as well as the respondents.

¶20

In view of the above, this court is satisfied that an error has crept in the order dated 2.11.2017. The same is accordingly recalled. The review petition stands allowed.

¶21

Let S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6101/2016 be again listed for arguments on merits on 27.1.2020.

¶22

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶23

Karan Bhutani /531/41

Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Sharma S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

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

M/S Rajasthan Telephone Inds L Vs Nil

M/S Rajasthan Polysters Ltd. Vs

Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Yadav Vs Director

Rajneesh Ajmera and Ors. Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Pappu Lal Sawariya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chairman Assi Manager Andors Vs Bhinwaram Yadav