Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra Paneri v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2024WMAP/43/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought recall of an interim order allowing withdrawal of a writ petition, arguing decisional delay. The court dismissed the application as it was based on the petitioner's own prior request and the counsel had changed, rendering the present application non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ miscellaneous application was dismissed as non-maintainable.

Dinesh Chandra Paneri Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Writ Misc Application No. 43/2024

¶3

Dinesh Chandra Paneri, R/o 37/302, Paswan Ji Temple Street, Rao Ji Ka Hatta, Udaipur, Tehsil And District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Skill Development And Entrepreneurship, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Technical Education, Directorate Of Technical Education, Jodhpur.

¶8

The Dy. Director (Training), Technical Education, Regional Office, Udaipur.

¶9

The Superintended, Industrial Training Institute, Salumbar, District Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

13/02/2024

¶15

By way of present application the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 11.09.2023 be recalled.

¶16

Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that per viam the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1766/2021, the respondents were required to decide petitioner’s representation within a period of four weeks and the same has not been decided so far and hence, the order be recalled and the writ petition be decided on its merits.

¶17

[WMAP-43/2024]

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record, including the order dated 11.09.2023.

¶20

A simple look at the order dated 11.09.2023, particularly para -1 reveals that it was the petitioner himself, who sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and sought liberty to file representation before the competent authority.

¶21

Since, such order was passed on petitioner’s own request this Court does not find any reason to recall the same, more so when the counsel, who appeared while arguing the writ petition is not the same, who has preferred the present application.

¶22

The present application, on the ground, as has been canvassed, is not maintainable, particularly because the counsel has changed. Such view finds support from the observation made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Borad Vs. N. Raju Reddiar reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736 .

¶23

The application thus stands dismissed.

¶24

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶25

73-Arun/-

Dinesh Chandra Paneri v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra Paneri v. 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

Shri Karamveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Rai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Loon Karan Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prasad Lakhara Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lrs of Shankar Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vahid Vs State of Rajasthan