Disposed

Purshotam Garg v. Jodhpur Development Authority

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2023CW/4528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, disposed of the writ petition by following the directions issued in Gopiram Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., directing the State respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within ten weeks.

Purshotam Garg Vs Jodhpur Development Authority — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4528/2021

¶3

Purshotam Garg S/o Shri Jagdish Lal Garg, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 06, Kh No. 27, Bhomiyaji Ke Than Ke Pass, C-131/1, Nandri Nandra Kalan, Nandari, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

	Versus
1.	Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Its Jodhpur, Rajasthan.	Secretary,
2.	The Commissioner, Jodhpur Development Jodhpur, Rajasthan.	Authority,
3.	The Executive Engineer, Jodhpur Development Jodhpur, Rajasthan. ----Re	Authority, spondents
For	Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangram Singh.
For	Respondent(s) :

¶6

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order

¶7

20/01/2023

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is identical to S.B Civil Writ Petition No.10695/2018 (Gopiram Gurjar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 16.05.2018 and that similar relief be granted to the petitioner also.

¶9

In the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-

¶10

“It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the Staterespondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik

¶11

(2 of 2)

¶12

[CW-4528/2021]

¶13

(supra),which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶14

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.

¶15

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the Staterespondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶16

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed of.”

¶17

In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as

¶18

given in the case of Gopiram Gurjar (supra) .

¶19

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶20

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶21

2-/Jitender//-

Purshotam Garg v. Jodhpur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshotam Garg v. Jodhpur Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punamdan Vs State

Sadasukh Bishnoi Vs Union of India

Sunita Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Badri Lal Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Dutt Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan