Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rajnish Jain S/O Raj Chand Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7680 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7680 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court
Rajnish Jain S/O Raj Chand Jain vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 December, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1146/2022

                                      In

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21741/2017


Rajnish Jain S/o Raj Chand Jain, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Jain Dadabari, Ward No.37, Jhunjhunu (Raj)


                                                                  ----Appellant

                                  Versus

1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
       Jhunjhunu.
2.     Dy. Inspector General, Registration And Stamp, Sikar
       Circle, B-2, Near Residence Of Collector, Basant Vihar,
       Sikar.
3.     Sub-Registrar, Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu.
                                                               ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nagendra Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Mehla, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment / Order 07/12/2022

Heard.

Though, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that

the appellant was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing

before cancellation of licence, we find that learned Single Judge

has recorded finding of facts based on the records of the case

that the appellant filed writ petition suppressing the fact that a

notice affording opportunity of hearing was issued to him to

which he chose not to file the reply. Learned Single Judge

(2 of 2) [SAW-1146/2022]

remarked while passing structures against the appellant that the

appellant abused process of law by suppressing material fact

and making false statement. Taking into consideration that

when the appellant did not dispute the proposed action, his

licence was cancelled, we are not inclined to grant any relief by

interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter