Dismissed

Smt. Anuradha Vyas v. Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024WCP/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consecutive writ contempt petition, the High Court at Jodhpur addressed grievances from an earlier writ petition. It observed that while some grievances were redressed, the authority responsible for one issue (SDO) was not a party. The notices of contempt issued to respondents not responsible were discharged, and the petition was disposed of without impleading the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Notices of contempt issued to respondent nos. 3 and 4 were discharged; the petition stood disposed of.

Smt. Anuradha Vyas Vs Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6397]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Writ Contempt Petition No. 61/2022

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8012/2021

¶6

Smt. Anuradha Vyas W/o Late Shri Avinash Vyas, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of B-9, Shastri Nagar Circle, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya, Director, Mines And Geology Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶10

Shri Sahdev Saran, Mining Engineer, Jaisalmer. 3. Shri Ashish Modi, District Collector And Magistrate, Jaisalmer.

¶11

Shri Mada Ram, Tehsildar, Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer. 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through To Secretary Mines And Geology Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Tayal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by
	Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
	Mr. Ram Dayal Choudhary
	Dr. Mohit Ashiya,Tehsildar,Fatehgarh

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

07/02/2024

¶17

Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were three grievances raised in the representation that was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 25.06.2021 passed in the writ petition. He contended that so far as two prayers in the representation are concerned, the same have been duly addressed, but petitioner’s

[2024:RJ-JD:6397]

[WCP-61/2022]

(2 of 2)

application under Section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act has not been decided.

¶22

Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the application under Section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act is to be decided by Sub Divisional Officer and he was neither impleaded as respondent in the writ petition nor has he been arrayed as respondent in the present contempt petition. He submitted that so far as the present respondents are concerned, they have complied with the order to the extent they were responsible for.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

The petitioner had not impleaded Sub Divisional Officer, the authority who is supposed to decide the application under Section 251-A of Rajasthan Tenancy Act as party respondent in the writ petition. That apart, even in these proceedings, he has not been arrayed as respondent – contemnor.

¶25

Two of petitioner’s grievances have been redressed by the concerned respondents. They cannot be held responsible for the action/inaction of SDO, who is not a party. Hence, notices of contempt issued to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 are discharged.

¶26

The present petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶27

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶28

137-Mak/-

Smt. Anuradha Vyas v. Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anuradha Vyas v. Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yusuf Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Bimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims)

Shatrughan Singh Vs Avvnl Ajmer and Ors.

Daulat Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandrakala Vs State of Rajasthan