Dismissed

Hanuman Prasad S/O Shri Trilok Chand v. Seema Choudhary, Executive Officer

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2020CCP/1358/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier Court order regarding his representations. Respondent assured disposal within two weeks, leading the Court to dismiss the petition with liberty to revive it if assurance is breached.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; liberty to seeker revival of the petition if representation is not disposed of within two weeks.

Hanuman Prasad S/O Shri Trilok Chand… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1358/2019

¶3

¶4

D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.837/2006

¶5

¶6

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6302/1997

¶7

Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Trilok Chand, Aged About 68 Years, B/c Kalal R/o Ward No. 2 Mohalla Bawri Ka Chowk, Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan

¶8

----Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

Seema Choudhary, Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Uniyara District Tonk, Rajasthan

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Archana on behalf of Mr. Anil Mehta, Additional Advocate General

¶13

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Order

¶15

18/02/2020

¶16

Petitioner has filed the contempt petition alleging that the

¶17

order passed by this Court dated 08.12.2017 has not been complied with.

¶18

Order dated 08.12.2017 reads as under:-

¶19

“ Counsel for the appellant submits that the amount which has been deposited is lying with the respondent and they have requested to approach the authority and if the representation is made in view of application(53117/2017) their case may be considered.

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CCP-1358/2019]

¶22

In view of the above, if the representation is made, the same will be considered in accordance with the law.

¶23

With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶24

The application(53117/2017) is also disposed of.

¶25

No order as to costs.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved representations in pursuance to the above order on 21.12.2017, 16.01.2018 and 04.02.2019 but no action has been taken by the respondent so far.

¶27

Learned State counsel has submitted that the representations moved by the petitioner will be disposed of within two weeks from today.

¶28

In view of the submissions made by the learned State counsel, no ground for further interference is called for.

¶29

Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule stands discharged.

¶30

It is clarified that in case, representation moved by the petitioner is not disposed of within two weeks from today, petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the petition.

¶31

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶32

Gourav/Jatin-25

Hanuman Prasad S/O Shri Trilok Chand v. Seema Choudhary, Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Prasad S/O Shri Trilok Chand v. Seema Choudhary, Executive Officer

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

Sulochana D/O Shri Richpal Singh W/O Shri Mahesh Kumar Vs Shri Mahesh Kumar S/O Shri Pema Ram Dhaka

Villagers of Village Chandpur Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh

Santokh Singh S/O Fauja Singh Vs Naveen Mahajan, Principal Secretary, State of Rajasthan, Jalday Department

Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chandra Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashiq Ali Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Hema @ Soniya W/O Rajeev Sapra D/O Kishan Chand Bhatia Vs Rajeev Sapra S/O Shri Parmanand Sapra