The State Of Rajasthan vs Parmeshwar Lal Sharma
2022 Latest Caselaw 4871 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 151/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, 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 Churu, Churu (Raj)

4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, City Sub Division Ratangarh Dist. Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus Parmeshwar Lal Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Caste Brahmin, R/o Village And Post Satada Tehsil Churu District Churu.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Ms. Anjana Jawa
For Respondent(s)            :     -



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

31/03/2022

1. The defects pointed out by the Registry are overruled.

2. The present review petition is directed against the order

dated 19.01.2021, passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the

respondent.

3. A perusal of the order under consideration reveals that

though learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on

the judgment rendered in case of Sohanlal Mathur Vs. State of

(2 of 2) [WRW-151/2021]

Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3631/2008,

decided on 17.11.2008, which has been affirmed by the Apex

Court in SLP (Civil)No.14932/2012, while disposing of the writ

petition, this Court has not given any finding about the petitioners'

case being covered by the judgments relied upon and has only

directed the present petitioner to consider respondent's

representation in terms of the judgment rendered in the case of

Sohan Lal (supra).

5. Hence, this Court does not find any error apparent on the

face of the record because rights of the petitioners have not been

decided. Obviously, the respondents shall be free to decide

petitioners' representation in accordance with law while

considering the referred judgments.

6. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.

7. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 20-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)