Satya Narayan Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10577 Raj

(1 of 2) [CW-3524/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3524/2021

Satya Narayan Rajpurohit S/o Jaisaram Rajpurohit, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Near Pande Ji Ki Tal, Indra Colony, 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, Pulic Health Engineering Department, Circle Bikaner (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjana Jawa, through VC

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

12/07/2021

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 petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to

the petitioner to file representation ventilating his grievance along

with a copy of the judgment dated 17.11.2008 rendered in the

(2 of 2) [CW-3524/2021]

case of SohanLal 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

representation of the petitioners 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 same in a

particular manner.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

41-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)