Dismissed

Chokhram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2020WMAP/1/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur held that a miscellaneous application filed to seek clarification regarding an impugned judgment is not maintainable as the principal writ petition has already been disposed of. The court declined to entertain the application, referring applicants to pursue a filed contempt petition if their rights were affected. The application was disposed of without delving into the me

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application was not entertained and disposed of. Applicants clarified they may pursue the contempt petition regarding their rights.

Chokhram Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 1/2020

¶4

Chokhram S/o Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 60 Years, Narawato Ka Goliya, Gram Panchayat Khari, Panchayat Samiti Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

¶5

Devi Singh S/o Pabudan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Village Narawato Ka Goliya, Gram Panchayat Khari, Panchayat Samiti Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

¶6

Modaram S/o Sangaram, Aged About 56 Years, Narawato Ka Goliya, Gram Panchayat Khari, Panchayati Samiti Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

¶7

----Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj & Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

State of Rajasthan through Secretary Department of Revenue, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶11

District Collector, Barmer.

¶12

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

¶13

Tehsildar, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Applicant (s) : Mr. Hapu Ram Vishnoi.

¶16

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

07/01/2020

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

This misc. application has come to be filed in D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No.17649/2019 seeking clarification that the

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[WMAP-1/2020]

¶23

impugned judgment dated 13.12.2019 may not have any effect on the correction notification dated 05.12.2019.

¶24

On perusal of the judgment dated 13.12.2019, We find that the judgment speaks for itself and it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has also filed a contempt petition.

¶25

Since D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No.17649/2019 came to be disposed of, the misc. application filed in the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶26

Accordingly, we do not entertain this misc. application, however, clarifying that if any rights of the applicants are affected in any manner, they are free to pursue the contempt petition.

¶27

The misc. application is disposed of.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶29

12-a.asopa/-

Chokhram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chokhram v. State 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

Vijay Singh Gehlot Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Kusum Lata Joshi

Shanker Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Jodhpur Vs Om Prakash Moondra

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) Vs Urmila Devi

Madhav Narik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs U.O.I.and Ors.