In a contempt petition, the High Court dismissed the complaint alleging disobedience of its direction to file an RTI representation. The Court found that the petitioner did not challenge the subsequent order of ineligibility, negating willful disobedience.
Contempt petition dismissed; notices 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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1569/2016
Anil Kumar S/o Shri Bachchu Singh, aged about 23 years, Resident of Village & Post Khatoti, Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Harsh Dadhich, Adv. for Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr.Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
25/11/2021
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after receipt of reply, efforts were made to contact the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not informed the counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Additional Advocate General Dr.V.B. Sharma appearing for the respondents-contemnors submitted that this Court, by disposing of the writ petition on 09.10.2015, gave direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the Authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to measurement of his chest and height.
(2 of 2)
[CCP-1569/2016]
Learned AAG Dr.V.B. Sharma submitted that the respondents have passed an order dated 01.06.2016, wherein it has been found that the petitioner was not eligible to be given appointment, as person having better height and chest measurement was available and in the event of availability of eligible person, the benefit of relaxation could not have been extended to the petitioner.
Learned AAG Dr.V.B. Sharma submitted that representation filed by the petitioner has not been put to challenge by him and as such, no contempt is committed by the respondents.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that direction to file a representation was given to the petitioner and as such, case of the petitioner has duly been considered by treating him ineligible as per order dated 01.06.2016.
This Court further finds that the order dated 01.06.2016 has not been put to challenge by the petitioner and accordingly, no willful disobedience is made by the respondentscontemnors and as such, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J
Himanshu Soni/375/38
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed contempt by not challenging the petitioner's representation filed under RTI Act regarding his eligibility for appointment.
Anil Kumar
Shri Deepak Upreti
Shri Manoj Bhatt
Shri Anil Kayal
Ashok Kumar Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
