Allowed

Paras Mal v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2024SAW/210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench allowed condonation of delay under Limitation Act and allowed special appeals by relying on governing precedent. Impugned writ court orders were set aside and cases remanded for fresh consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.01/2024 allowed; special appeals allowed; impugned order of Writ Court set aside; case remanded for fresh consideration by Single Judge; stay applications disposed of.

Paras Mal Vs the State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:30054-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

(1) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 210/2024

¶4

Paras Mal S/o Shri Bhikchand Ji, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of Balotra, Tehsil- Pachpadra, District- Barmer, Proprietor Of M/s Sangam Enterprises/ Processing, Khasra No. 196, Jerlaraod, Balotra, District- Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The District Collector, Barmer.

¶8

Riico Limited, Industrial Area, Balotra, Tehsil-Pachpadra, Ditrict- Barmer, Through Its Regional Manager

¶9

Municipal Board, Through Executive Officer, Balotra, District- Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶10

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, District- Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

(2) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 411/2024

¶13

M/s. Vinayak Febtek, Through Its Proprietor Smt. Vandana Karnawat W/o Shri Rajnish Karnawat, Aged About 53 Years, R/ o 1, Ahinsha Complex, Ambedkar Circle, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

Raj. State Industrial Deve. And Investment Cor. Ltd., (Riico), Through Its Managing Director, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶17

The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Limited, (Riico), Pali

¶18

The District Collector Pali, Pali, Rajasthan.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Prem Dayal Bohra Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit on behalf of Mr. B.S. Sandhu
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Twinkle Purohit on behalf of Mr. Sanjeet Purohit

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

23/07/2024

(2 of 3)

[SAW-210/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:30054-DB]

¶27

I.A. No. 01/2024 in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 210/2024:-

¶28

This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed for condoning the delay of 06 days in preferring the present special appeal.

¶29

In the Limitation Application, the appellant has pleaded that the appellant had some serious health issues and therefore, an inadvertent delay has occasioned in filing of the instant special appeal. It is prayed that the delay caused in submission of the instant appeal being bonafide and unintentional may be condoned. 3. Having gone through the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, we find that the delay of 06 days, in filing the present special appeal deserves to be condoned. 4. Consequently, I.A. No.01/2024 is allowed.

¶30

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 210/2024 & D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.

¶31

411/2024 :-

¶32

It is stated by learned counsel representing the appellants that the controversy involved in the present special appeals is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Writ Petitions led by Surya Texcom, through its proprietor Smt. Samta Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.901/2023), whereby, the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Writ Court and all the matters have been remanded for consideration afresh on individual basis.

¶33

In view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Surya Texcom ( supra ), which is governing the controversy on all faces and on the facts and circumstances available on record, the instant appeals are allowed. The

¶34

(3 of 3)

¶35

[SAW-210/2024]

¶36

[2024:RJ-JD:30054-DB]

¶37

impugned order of Writ Court is set aside. The case is remanded for consideration afresh by learned Single Judge on its merit.

¶38

Stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶39

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

¶40

12 & 17-TarunGoyal/-

Paras Mal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Mal 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

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohit Kumar

Arpit Paliwal Vs Rajasthan High Court

Union of India Vs No. 3181525Y Ex. Hav Bhanwar Lal Rinwa

Gajender Bishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Jyoti Tripathi

Lal Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan