This is a two-judge bench order dismissing a Civil Miscellaneous Application. The High Court observed that no grounds were made out for modifying the impugned order dated 23.09.2019. The application was dismissed without substantive engagement on legal merits as no respondent counsel appeared.
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
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 33/2020
In
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.126/2019
In
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.219/2017
(2 of 5)
[CMAP-33/2020]
(3 of 5)
[CMAP-33/2020]
----Petitioners
Versus
(4 of 5)
[CMAP-33/2020]
Development Authority Commissioner, JLN Marg, Jaipur
(5 of 5)
[CMAP-33/2020]
Kacchi Basti, Ward No. 61 (Old Ward No. 32) Sethi Colony, Behind Mental Hospital, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shalini Sheoran, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
01/04/2022
None present on behalf of the respondents.
On the last occasion, none was appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
No ground for modification of the order dated 23.09.2019 is made out.
The Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners stands dismissed.
After waiting sometime, none is also appeared on behalf of the State.
Copy of this order be sent to learned Advocate General to take note of it.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/Jatin /1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners requires to be modified.
Bablu S/o Siya Ram and others
State Of Rajasthan and others
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Chandra Kumar Songara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
