Allowed

Smt. Phusi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2024CW/7325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions connected to a prior decision ordering the reactivation of Self Help Group Rasoi operations and deactivation of SSO IDs, applying the same terms as a recent judgment. Stay petitions were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed on same terms as Parama Devi case; respondent authorities directed to permit Rasoi operation and reactivate SSO IDs. Stay petitions disposed of.

Smt. Phusi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33493]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7325/2024

¶4

Smt. Phusi W/o Bhavarlal, Aged About 44 Years, Ward-17, Village Padalbas, 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. 3. The District Project Manager, Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parishad, Bikaner.

¶9

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

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7419/2024

¶13

Smt. Lichma W/o Shri Mula Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward-08, Village Sadhasar, Village Sadhasar, Gram Panchayat Jasrasar, Tehsil Nokha, District - Bikaner (Rajasthan).

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

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

¶17

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Bikaner. 3. The District Project Manager, Rajasthan Grameen Aajeevika Vikas Parishad, Bikaner.

¶18

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

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Tayal For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Solanki for Mr. Manish Patel, AAG

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:33493]

[CW-7325/2024]

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶25

Order

¶26

12/08/2024

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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).

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Evidently, no other reason has been assigned in the document dated 11.03.2024

[2024:RJ-JD:33493]

[CW-7325/2024]

(3 of 4)

as to why the operation of the Rasoi is not of much utility.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.’’

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:33493]

[CW-7325/2024]

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

¶43

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

¶44

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶45

25-26--Devanshi/

Smt. Phusi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Phusi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banwari and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Nav Shiksha Samaj, Jodhpur Vs State and Ors.

Rajputana Transport Company Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Manoj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar Vs Bhanwar Lal

Sunil Chaudhary Vs District Collector