Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajendra Tanwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 127/2019
1. Rajendra Tanwar S/o Shri Arjun Singh Tanwar, Aged
About 45 Years, Resident Of High Court Colony Behind
Senapati Bhawan, Jodhpur.
2. Bholaram S/o Shri Hemaram,, Aged About 74 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 289, Gali No. 12, Veer Durgadas
Colony, Masuria, Jodhpur.
3. Smt. Sukhdevi W/o Shri Bholaram,, Aged About 70 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 289, Gali No. 12, Veer Durgadas
Colony, Masuria, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur.
2. Tehsildar Luni, District Jodhpur.
3. Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur Through Deputy
Commissioner, (South).
4. State Consumer Dispute Reddressal Commission, Circuit
Bench, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari (on VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.K. Purohit, GC (on VC)
Mr. Suniel Purohit (on VC)
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/01/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to
refrain from coming to the Courts.
The petitioners have preferred this review petition claiming
the following reliefs:
(Downloaded on 21/01/2022 at 08:55:04 PM)
(2 of 3) [WRW-127/2019]
"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that
the present application for review of the judgment dated
22.05.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
allowed and following reliefs may kindly be granted in
favour of the applicants:-
A. The judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4105/2018 may kindly
be reviewed and bet set aside.
B. The writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.4105/2018 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra
Tanwar and Ors. may kindly be restored to its original
number and be heard on merits as per law.
C. Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favor of the
petitioner."
Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that there is an exclusion clause in the judgment relied
upon and due to oversight, he accepted the applicability of the
judgment of Divisional Manager NIC Ltd. Jodhpur Vs.
Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
& Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1972/2012) decided on
25.10.2018, but after reading the exclusion clause in the said
judgment, which was followed by this Court at the request of
learned counsel for all the parties, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that he is of the view that the exclusion clause
in the present case will apply, and therefore, the order passed
ought to be reviewed for either being heard on merits or to
provide appropriate remedy to the present petitioners.
Mr. L.K. Purohit, learned Government Counsel and Mr. Suniel
Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent submit that the
exclusion clause was only upon the orders passed by the Single
Member Benches where the orders have already been complied
whereas they categorically submit that in this matter, the order is
(Downloaded on 21/01/2022 at 08:55:04 PM)
(3 of 3) [WRW-127/2019]
yet to be complied till today and the judgment of Divisional
Manager NIC Ltd. Jodhpur (supra) is holding the field, and
therefore, no cause of any review is made out.
This Court, after hearing the submissions, observes that the
parties had jointly requested the Court to decide the matter in
light of the judgment of Divisional Manager, NIC Ltd. Jodhpur
(supra), and however, it is to be examined by this Court that any
exclusion clause of the judgment, which was left out due to
oversight by the learned counsel for the petitioners may not
render the petitioners remediless.
After carefully reading the paragraph in question, this Court
finds that the exclusion clause is not applicable of the judgments,
which have not been already complied and it is an admitted
position that in the present judgment, it is yet to be complied.
In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference in the
review petition is called for and the same is accordingly dismissed.
It is needless to say that the State Consumer Commission shall
decide the issue expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
11-Zeeshan
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
