Dr. Devendra Kumar Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7699 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 1255/2022

                                       In

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19958/2019

Dr. Devendra Kumar Son Of Shri Hakim Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Anirudh Nagar, Bharatpur.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
       Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
       Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
       Animal Husbandry Department, Government Secretariat,
       Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.     Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Jaipur.
4.     Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur.
5.     Dr. Arvind Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Jawahar Singh, Aged
       About 48 Years, R/o Old Roadways Workshop, Near
       Circuit House, Bharatpur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. David Mahla, Advocate for Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Datt, Advocate with Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Judgment / Order

08/12/2022

Heard.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to

challenge only that part of the order by which interim order dated

02.12.2019 is ordered to be vacated.

(2 of 2) [SAW-1255/2022]

The argument raised before this Court is that once the writ

petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed,

interim order merged in the same and, therefore, there was no

need to vacate the interim order.

The order of learned Single Judge vacating interim order

appears to have been passed because the impugned order which

was earlier stayed itself was quashed. Therefore, the appeal is

misconceived in law and is dismissed.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)