Disposed

Meenakshi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2023CW/1050/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur disposed of two connected writ petitions alleging non-decision of permit applications. The Court directed the respective Regional Transport Authorities to decide the applications within one month as per Rule 5.6(5) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent 2/3 to decide the permit application within one month of receipt of this order.

Meenakshi Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:42659]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1020/2019

¶4

Kumari Meenakshi D/o Late Shri Jogendra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, Kalwana Tehsil Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa (Haryana) Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shamsher Singh S/o Shri Mukh Ram Aged 67 Years B/c Bhadu R/o Kalwana Tehsil Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa (Haryana)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶8

Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1050/2019

¶12

Meenakshi D/o Late Shri Jogindra Singh, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Kalwana Tehsil Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa (Haryana) Through Her Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Shamsher Singh Son Of Shri Mukh Ram Aged 67 Years By Caste Resident Of Kalwana Tehsil Mandi Dabwali District Srisa (Haryana).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶16

Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner.

¶17

The Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S.P. Arora
	Mr. I.S. Pareek
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohit Choudhary

¶20

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶21

Order

¶22

07/12/2023

¶23

In SBCWP NO.1020/2019 :-

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:42659]

[CW-1020/2019]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging inaction on part of the respondent No.2-Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner, in not deciding the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permit.

¶28

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view provisions of Rule 5.6(5) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 (‘the Rules, 1990), the authority is bound to decide the application filed by the petitioner within a stipulated time frame, however, the application filed by the petitioner has not been decided yet.

¶29

Copy of the writ petition was supplied to learned counsel representing the respondent No.2-Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent-Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner, submitted that in case, the averments made by the petitioner were found to be correct, the authority would do the needful in terms of the provisions of the Rules, 1990.

¶31

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondents No.2-Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner, is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed by this Court.

¶32

Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

In SBCWP NO.1050/2019 :-

¶34

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging inaction on part of the respondent No.3-The Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, in not deciding the application filed by the petitioner for grant of permit.

[2023:RJ-JD:42659]

[CW-1020/2019]

(3 of 3)

Copy of the writ petition was supplied to learned counsel representing the respondent No.3-The Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent-The Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, submitted that in case, the averments made by the petitioner were found to be correct, the authority would do the needful in terms of the provisions of the Rules, 1990.

¶41

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of, the respondents No.3-The Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed by this Court.

¶42

Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶43

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

¶44

175-176-/Devesh/-

Meenakshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State and Ors.

Jhabbar Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Lal Bagrecha Vs Shri Rajeshwar Singh

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Lal Vs Raj.Civil Ser. Appl. Tri. , Jaipur and Ors.

Brahmin Swankar Trust Ganesh Mandir Vs Rk Jayaswal and Anr.