Vinod Kumar v. Jodhpur Development Autho., Jod. and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Review petitions challenging a 2015 Division Bench judgment were dismissed. The Court held no error appeared on the record as pleadings alone did not establish alternative remedy issues, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents was factually inapplicable.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 169/2019
Bhagwan Dhankani s/o Shri Kallu Mal Dhankani, aged about 45 years, r/o 11th ‘C’ Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
- Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur.
- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur.
- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur.
- The Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists regarding the non-raising of alternative remedy objection before the Single Judge.
Whether the judgment of Mehra Bal Chikitsalaya renders writ petitions challenging orders of District and State Consumer Commissions non-maintainable.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Multiple Petitioners (Writ Petitioners in connected Review Petitions)
- respondent
Jodhpur Development Authority
- respondent
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur
- respondent
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur
- respondent
Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRW/60/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court