State Of Rajasthan vs Rahul Sharma S/O Shri Rajendra ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5072 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

           D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 837/2022
                                          In
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4948/2021
1.     State      Of    Rajasthan,          Through          Principal     Secretary,
       Department Of Mines And Geology Rajasthan, Secretariat,
       Jaipur.
2.     Joint     Secretary      Department           Of     Mines    And     Geology
       Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.     Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Rajasthan,
       Udaipur.
4.     Additional Director, Department Of Mines And Geology,
       Jaipur Zone, Jaipur.
5.     Superintending           Mining         Engineer,       Rajsamand      Circle,
       Rajsamand.
6.     Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Amet
       (Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                      Versus
Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, R/o C-53, RIICO Housing Colony, Ajmer Road, Beawar
District Ajmer.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Charvi Patni, Advocate & Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Dutt Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat, Advocate

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

Judgment / Order

25/07/2022

Heard.

(2 of 2) [SAW-837/2022]

Though number of grounds have been urged, we find that

the order has been passed by the learned Single Judge on the

basis of the concession granted by the State.

Learned State counsel would submit that such concession

was erroneously given in the Court.

The ground which is now being urged can only be urged

before the learned Single Judge by way of review/recall and not by

way of writ appeal.

The appeal is misconceived in law and is, therefore,

dismissed, however, with liberty to file review.

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

Mohita /4

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)