Dismissed¶30

Commissioner, College Education v. Managing Committee, Churu Balika Mahavidhyalaya

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2025SAW/681/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur DB Special Appeal (Writ) 681/2025 decided 04/09/2025; appeal by Commissioner, College Education against consent order dated 08.07.2024 in SB Civil Writ Petition 2039/2022 dismissed; delay condonation under Section 5 Limitation Act refused, reasons held wholly misconceived; consent order in terms of Subodh Shiksha Samiti v. Om Prakash Verma (Review Petition (Writ) 300/2017) and Pragya Mahavidyalaya v. Chandra Prakash Gupta (Misc. Application 226/2022); no merits error; grant-in-aid matter; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶30

Commissioner, College Education Vs Managing Committee, Churu Balika Mahavidhyalaya — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:35604-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 681/2025

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2039/2022

¶6

Commissioner, College Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Managing Committee, Churu Balika Mahavidhyalaya, District Churu, Through Its Secretary Sh. Bhagirath Sharma

¶10

Managing Committee, Churu Charitable Trust, Churu (Rajasthan), Through Its Trustee Sh Bhagwati Prasad Bihani.

¶11

---Respondents

¶12

Sh. Kishore Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Ashu Singh, R/o Village Kharia, Post Binasar, Tehsil Churu, District Churu (Rajasthan)

¶13

----Proforma-Respondent

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with Mr. Hamir Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

¶16

Order

¶17

04/09/2025

¶18

The appeal being belated, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, wherein it is stated that the delay has occurred as on analyzing the facts and circumstances of each institution, it was found that they were already having the advantage of excess grant-in-aid and after making due

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:35604-DB]

¶20

[SAW-681/2025]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

assessment of the years-long record of the institutions, it was found that the learned Single Judge was erroneous in that sense and the impugned order is thereby required to be assailed. 2. We find the reasons to be wholly misconceived. The order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge impugned before us in the appeal, is a consent order and it would be apposite to quote the order as under:-

¶23

"Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is common, they are being tagged.

¶24

As agreed and requested by the learned counsels for the respective parties, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of order dated 17.02.2022 passed by this Court in S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.300/2017 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1556/2017: Managing Committee, S.S. Jain Subodh Shiksha Samiti & Anr. versus Om Prakash Verma & Anr. and other connected matters and modified by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2022 passed in S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No.226/2022 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.8665/2019: Managing Committee, Shri Pragya Mahavidyalaya, Bijainagar, Ajmer & Anr. versus Dr. Chandra Prakash Gupta & Anr. and other connected matters.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. "

¶26

In view of above, we find that the learned Single Judge has only relied on the earlier orders passed and that to on the consent given by the counsel for the appellant, no error can be said to

¶27

[SAW-681/2025]

¶28

[2025:RJ-JP:35604-DB]

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

have been committed on merits as well on delay, appeal is dismissed.

¶31