Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 August, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:26172]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11602/2023
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Harkharam, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Ward No. 6, Vpo Bahalolnagar, 43 SSW, Dabli Rathan,
Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Commissioner Cum Joint Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
4. The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Pilibangan District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
18/08/2023
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by
judgment in Ranveer Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.8860/2021, decided on 15.07.2021 (Annex.P/5
filed with the writ petition) and submits that case of the petitioner
is identical to that of Ranveer Soni (supra).
In the case of Ranveer Soni (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court referring to the judgment in Sardar Mal v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9772/2011, decided
on 07.08.2012 and Man Singh Hada & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
& Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8124/2012, decided on
[2023:RJ-JD:26172] (2 of 2) [CW-11602/2023]
28.01.2014 alongwith Brij Lal Bundel v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
: 2007(1) RLW 484, inter-alia, directed as under :-
"In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant
writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the
petitioner to address a comprehensive representation
within two weeks hereinafter, enclosing a copy of the
judgment, which has been referred to and relied upon
in support of his claim.
In case, a representation is so addressed within
the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are
directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned
and speaking order in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than
three months from the date of receipt of the
representation alongwith a certified copy of this order.
Upon consideration of the representation so filed,
if respondents find the case of the petitioner to be
covered by the judgment(s) aforesaid, before giving
actual benefits, an undertaking shall be procured from
the petitioner to the effect that his rights/entitlements
shall be subservient to the fate of the judgment(s)
aforesaid and in case the same is reversed or modified
in any manner, he shall also be liable for restitution of
any benefits/emoluments so received.
With the observations and directions, as indicated
above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
The stay application is also disposed of."
In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is disposed of with the directions as given by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ranveer Soni (supra).
The order has been passed based on the submissions made
in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the
veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,
the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner
would be entitled to the relief.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
127-/AnilSingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
