Mukesh Saini vs State Of Raj Thr Pr Secretary And ...

[2023:RJ-JP:23757]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1159/2017

                                             In

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15716/2016

Mukesh Saini, S/o Sohan Lal Saini, aged about 39 years, R/o
Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas, Alwar Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of      Rajasthan         Through         Principal     Secretary,
         Department          Of    Local      Self    Government,          Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Nagar Parishad, Through Its Chairman Ashok Khanna,
         Church Road, Near Ghanta Ghar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
3.       Nagar Parishad, Through Its Commissioner Murari Verma,
         Church Road, Near Ghanta Ghar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
4.       Prem        Singh     S/o     Padam         Singh      Presently,   Presently
         Residing At 126, Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas,
         Alwar, Rajasthan.
5.       Smt. Roopwati W/o Prem Singh, Presently Residing At
         126, Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas, Alwar,
         Rajasthan.
6.       Pawan Arora, Director Local Body Department Local Self
         Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Near C-Scheme
         Phatak, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Ms. Archana Mr. Kartar Singh Fauzdar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 18/09/2023 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:06:52 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:23757] (2 of 2) [CCP-1159/2017] Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance of their decision taken as per note-sheet dated 08.02.2016, charge-sheets have been issued to the erring officials. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copies of the charge-sheets submitted for perusal of this Court do not bear signature of the disciplinary authority.

Heard. Considered.

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the order of this Court dated 28.03.2023 and copies of the charge-sheet submitted for perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is satisfied that there has been substantial compliance of the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by this Court.

In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed. The notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/28 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:06:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)