Prabhulal Mehra S/o Shri Ramnarain, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Sakatpura, 4 Number Gate, Garib Nawaj Rui Centre Ke Pass, Police Station Kunhari, District Kota (Raj.) Who Is One Of The Party (Respondent No.10), In Honorable Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, D.b. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 48/2022, Titled As Smt. Manorma Saini Versus State Of Rajasthan And Others.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Ravindra Goswami, District Collector Kota, (Raj.)

¶10

Mr. Rajeev Maharshi, Home Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Mittal Mr. Inderjeet Tak
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General with
	Ms. Harshita Thakral

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶15

Order

¶16

12/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J (ORAL):

¶17

This contempt petition is filed seeking willful disobedience of orders of this Court dated 30.06.2022 and 23.09.2022 passed in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.48/2022.

¶18

[2024:RJ-JP:46663-DB]

¶19

[CCP-386/2024]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

The brief facts are that the petition was filed by one Smt. Manorma Saini stating that a ninety five year old lady has no-one to look after and has been left on mercy of God. She was having 60-80 bighas of land, which is open to the public for misuse. The Bench interacted with the corpus in camera proceedings. The directions were issued that a lady officer be deputed of the Social Welfare Department for properly looking after the corpus at Apna Ghar Ashram Jamdoli, Jaipur. Further taking into consideration that sham transactions were being entered for the property of the corpus, the State was directed to take necessary action to safeguard and protect the property of the corpus. The directions were that except for officer appointed by the State and the officers of Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, no-one else would be allowed to meet the corpus and no transaction should take place with regard to her property.

¶22

On 23.09.2022, looking at the will of the corpus, the State Authorities were directed to transfer her from Apna Ghar Ashram Jamdoli, Jaipur to Vivekananda Ashram, Kota and that she be properly looked after and given medical treatment, as required. It was directed that the corpus may be taken to her property for giving her confidence that the property is safe.

¶23

The respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10 contended that they are distant relatives of corpus but in absence to explain definite relationship, the contentions raised by them were not entertained by the Court and the petition was disposed of. 5. The petitioner in contempt was respondent No.10 in the Habeas Corpus petition.

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:46663-DB]

¶25

[CCP-386/2024]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State is not properly looking after the property and the possession is not with the State.

¶28

Learned Advocate General submits that the property was taken over by the State and the corpus expired during the pendency of the petition. Orders have been passed with regard to the property left behind by the corpus and the property is being dealt with in accordance with law. The order dated 03.07.2023 is placed on record to the effect that property left by the corpus was taken over by the State.

¶29

In the fag end of life, the corpus was left on her own at the mercy of God without even providing basic necessities for survival, the fight now is for the property left behind. The petitioner failed in the Habeas Corpus petition to even prima facie establish relationship with the corpus. Even at this stage, there is nothing pleaded or contended that any step was ever taken by the petitioner to look after or for the welfare of the corpus during her life time.

¶30

There is no case made out for non-compliance of the directions of the Court. The petition is dismissed.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Simple Kumawat /19

Whether Reportable: Yes /No

Prabhulal Mehra S/O Shri Ramnarain v. Mr. Ravindra Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prabhulal Mehra S/O Shri Ramnarain v. Mr. Ravindra Goswami

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.C.E. and S.T. Jaipur -I Vs Mitsui Prime Advanced Compostites India Pvt. Ltd.

Asha Khunteta W/O Shri Sandeep Khunteta Vs Assistant Commissioner, Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CIRCLE-3

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Jugal Kishore Garg (Derewala)

Amita Malik Proprietor of M/S Chopra Electronics Vs Union of India

Vikesh Singh @ Jitendra Singh S/O Samay Singh Vs Anjali Rajoria

Rajan Jhiriwal Son of Shri Kamal Kumar Jhiriwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax