Himanshu S/O Shri Joginder Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:434]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2630/2024

Himanshu S/o Shri Joginder Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o House No. 7, Haweli Pada, Jindpura, Village Jindpura, Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

(Elected as Pradhan Panchayati Samiti Uchchain, Distt. Bharatpur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary To Government, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj.).

¶10

The Commissioner (Panchayati Raj. Department) Cum Secretary To Govt. (Inquiry), Rural Development And Panchayati Raj. Department, Secretariate, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶11

The Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶12

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena, for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur Mr. Pranay Sharma Mr. Sumit Purohit

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order

¶16

07/01/2026

¶17

None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset has submitted that on account of subsequent events the writ petition itself has become infructuous. Counsel submits that the prayer

[2026:RJ-JP:434]

[CW-2630/2024]

(2 of 3)

made in the petition is to quash the suspension order dated 11.02.2024, vide which the petitioner was placed under suspension from the post of Pradhan of the Panchayat Samiti, Ucchain, District Bharatpur and be permitted to continue as Pradhan of the said Panchayat Samiti, whereas petitioner already stand removed from the post in view of the No Confidence Motion moved by the Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Ucchain on 12.08.2024.

¶23

Thus, learned counsel submits that as the No Confidence Motion has already been passed against the petitioner, nothing further survives in the writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Writ Petition(c) No.818/2025, while deciding Misc. Application No.1912/2025, vide its order dated 14.11.2025, after taking note of the fact that there has been a material suppression and deliberate concealment by the petitioner of important facts, has dismissed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner and has even imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of the order dated 14.11.2025, reads as under:-

¶25

“4. Be that as it may, returning back to the No Confidence Motion, we are informed that the Motion was taken up and in fact passed on 12.08.2024. Consequently, Election Notification was issued on 29.01.2025 and elections were held on 16.02.2025.

¶26

5. None of these facts find place in the narration of the synopsis or events in the writ petition. There is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the necessary facts in the writ petition.

¶27

6. In this view of the matter, we direct as under:a) The order dated 01.09.2025 in the W.P.(C) No.818 of 2025 is hereby recalled and the writ petition is dismissed. b) Since the petitioner has suppressed the material facts in the writ petition, we impose a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) on the petitioner.

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:434]

[CW-2630/2024]

c) The amount shall be deposited in the account of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within two months from today.”

¶32

Considering the facts obtained from record and also the fact that none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the last date, i.e. 24.11.2025 and even today, this Court is considering to decide the writ petition.

¶33

In view of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the fact that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has been removed by passing of a No Confidence Motion by the Members of Panchayat Samiti, Ucchain, dated 12.08.2024, nothing further survives in the writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed.

¶34

All pending application(s) stands disposed of.

¶35

(ANUROOP SINGHI),J

¶36

Ravi Khandelwal - 47

Himanshu S/O Shri Joginder Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu S/O Shri Joginder Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Priyanka P. Nair D/O Sh. N. Prasanna Kumaran Nair Vs the State of Rajasthan

Abdul Rasheed S/O Shri Gunnikhan Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Maa Bhagwati Minerals Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr. Milan Kumar Khatri S/O Deepak Kumar Khatri Vs State of Rajasthan

I.T.E. India Private Limited Vs Jaipur Development Authority

M/S Tech Martz Plus Sachdeva Electricals Joint Venture Vs the State of Rajasthan