Allowed

Smt. Sukhi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2024CW/7272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reactivation of an SSO ID and permission to operate a rural kitchen (Rasoi). Relying on a recent judgment in Parama Devi v. State of Rajasthan, the Court dismissed the petition on the same terms, noting that the notice period was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's SSO ID to be reactivated with immediate effect and permission granted to operate the Rasoi.

Smt. Sukhi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33608]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7272/2024

¶4

Smt. Sukhi W/o Shri Bhikha Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Dhora Bas, Gram Panchayat Jasrasar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.

¶9

The District Project Manager, Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parishad, Bikaner.

¶10

Bikaner Nagar Nigam, Through Its Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Road, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Muskan Jangid for
	Mr. Rishabh Tayal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manish Patel,AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶14

13/08/2024

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Parama Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7240/2024 (decided on 12.07.2024).

¶16

Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State does not refute the above submission.

¶17

In Parama Devi’s case (supra), it was observed and directed as under:

¶18

“7. A bare perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 11.03.2024 (Annex.R/1) shows that the only reason assigned to close down 53 Rasois was that the population of

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:33608]

[CW-7272/2024]

the concerned area was not more than five thousand whereas the Rasois were started on the criterion of the population of the village only.

¶23

The above fact and reason as assigned, prove to be factually incorrect in terms of the voter list of 2023 as placed on record by the petitioner along with her rejoinder.

¶24

Evidently, no other reason has been assigned in the document dated 11.03.2024 as to why the operation of the Rasoi is not of much utility.

¶25

8. Further, it is evident on record that no notice whatsoever, was served on the petitioner prior to the decision of her SSO ID being deactivated and further, no valid reason was assigned in deactivating the same. It is quite natural that a substantial amount would have been invested by the petitioner/Self Help Group for operation of the concerned Rasoi. An order to discontinue the same on one fine morning without any notice to the concerned and the affected party, cannot be anything other than arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. The action of the respondent authorities cannot be approved on any count.

¶26

9. The writ petition is hence, allowed . The respondent authorities are directed to reactivate the SSO ID of the petitioner with immediate effect and permit her to operate the Rasoi qua which an agreement was entered by the competent authority, for the period for which the agreement was entered.’’

¶27

In view of the same, the present writ petition is also allowed on the same terms as in the case of Parama Devi (supra).

¶28

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

237-KashishS/-

Smt. Sukhi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sukhi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar Vs Bhanwar Lal

Smt. Phusi Vs the State of Rajasthan

L. N. Memorial Para Medical Institute Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bharat Lal Shiv Sahay and Sons Transport Company Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawariya Construction Company Vs Rajasthan State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.