Vachan Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8108 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 749/2021

Vachan Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh Ji, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Thumba, Post Padarli Ahore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

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

4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Ahore, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. AP Mahajan
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Shakti Singh for
                                 Ms. Ajnana Jawa



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

24/03/2021

1. After arguing for some time, Mr. Mahajan, 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),

(2 of 2) [CW-749/2021]

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

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 86-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)