Allowed

Rakesh Kumar v. the Collector Hanumangarh

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2023CW/27/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought information and consideration of an application from the Village Development Officer. The High Court directed the respondent to provide the information within four weeks or pass a speaking order if legally impossible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to provide sought information within four weeks or pass a speaking order.

Rakesh Kumar Vs the Collector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/003719]

[CW-27/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27/2023

¶6

Rakesh Kumar S/o Nathu Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Jat, Resident Of Village Munda, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Collector Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, (Raj.).

¶10

Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Munda, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, (Raj.).

¶11

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh, (Raj.).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶15

Order

¶16

03/02/2023

¶17

By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

¶18

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to provide the information sought by the petitioner in application dated 19.10.2022 (Annex.1).

¶19

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 19.10.2022”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of letters dated 19.10.2022 & 11.11.2022, the petitioner sought

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/003719]

[CW-27/2023]

certain information after paying applicable fee; despite petitioner’s persuasion, the Gram Vikas Adhikari, Gram Panchayat, Munda, Panchayat Samiti Hanumangarh, has not provided the requisite information. He submitted that the petitioner also preferred an legal notice before the VDO Munda, but the same is pending consideration.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards Rules 321 to 328 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the desired information.

¶26

After hearing learned counsel and perusing the Rules of 1996, respondent No.2 is hereby directed to provide the information sought by the petitioner in accordance with law. The same be provided within a period of four weeks from placing certified copy of the order instant.

¶27

If respondent No.2 is of the view that the information sought for cannot be legally provided, he shall pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶28

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Needless to observe that the aforesaid direction has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to comply the same in a particular manner.

¶30

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶32

104-AnilSingh/-

Rakesh Kumar v. the Collector Hanumangarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. the Collector Hanumangarh

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

Khinv Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeet Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajeev Gandhi Livestock Assistant Training Center Vs State of Rajasthan

Au Small Finance Bank Ltd. Vs Union of India

Chunni Lal Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Late Kumari Laxmi Badhala Shiksha and Researh Centre Vs State of Rajasthan