Bhanwar Lal Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4724 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2903/2021

Bhanwar Lal Purohit S/o Laxmi Das Purohit, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Surdasani Gali, Barah Guwad Chowk, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Chief Engineer (Rural), Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Bikaner (Raj).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. M. S. Purohit



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                Judgment

19/02/2021

1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if the

respondents are directed to consider his representation, which he

would be filing (within a period of 15 days from today) in the light

of judgment rendered by this Court in Sohan Lal Mathur Vs. State

of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008), decided on

17.11.2008, which has subsequently been confirmed up till the

Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.14932/2012.

2. The writ petitions is, therefore, disposed of with a direction

to the petitioner to file representation ventilating his grievance

alongwith a copy of the judgment dated 17.11.2018 rendered in

(2 of 2) [CW-2903/2021]

the case of Sohan Lal Mathur (supra) and a certified copy of the

order instant within a period of two weeks from today.

3. If such representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall consider the same and do the needful in

accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

petitioner's representation(s) has been issued only with a view to

ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same

may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation

in a particular manner.

5. The stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 31-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)