Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kharadi vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-11570/2022]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11570/2022
Dinesh Kharadi S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kharadi, Aged About 43
Years, R/o Ora Bara District Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Director, Medical And Health Services, Zone
Udaipur, Udaipur.
4. The Joint Secretary To The Government, Department Of
Medical And Health (Group-2) And Panchayati Raj
(Medical) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Assistant Secretary To The Government, Department
Of Medical And Health (Group-2), Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Kharadi, petitioner present
in person
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Parmendra Bohra &
Mr. Dhanraj Khinchi
Mrs. Vandana Bhansali, AGC with
Ms. Vrinda Samdani
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/01/2023
1. On 29.09.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in wake of
the preliminary objection raised by the respondents has passed
the following order:
(2 of 4) [CW-11570/2022]
"A preliminary objection has been raised
on behalf of respondents in the present matter
that the petitioner had already approached the
Tribunal vide an appeal filed on 05.08.2022. The
said appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner by
filing an application on 10.08.2022. The present
writ petition has been filed on 06.08.2022 and
the fact of an appeal already having been filed
before the Tribunal was concealed by the
petitioner in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the State as well as
private respondent submitted that even while
withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal, the
fact of a writ petition having been filed before
this Court was not stated and it was withdrawn
only on the ground of the family circumstances
of the petitioner. The said application preferred
before the Tribunal was signed not only by
counsel for the petitioner but also by the
petitioner himself. Therefore, it has been prayed
on behalf of the respondents that the present
writ petition be dismissed on the ground of
concealment of the said facts only.
In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the respondents relied upon the
following judgments:
1.Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of
India ; (2007) 8SCC 449, decided on
20.08.2007.
2.Green Belt Society Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.; D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.620/2017,
decided on 14.02.2017.
3.Mohd. Sajid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.; S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.11612/2022, decided on 26.08.2022.
(3 of 4) [CW-11570/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this
juncture prayed for time to complete his
instructions.
Time prayed for is granted.
List the matter on 12.10.2022."
2. It is to be noted that when above proceedings were drawn,
learned counsel Ms. Shweta Bora led by learned senior counsel Mr.
Ravi Bhansali appeared for the petitioner.
3. Today, learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh appeared and
submitted that the order impugned passed by the respondent is
per se contrary to the Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj
(Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules of 2011') and that his writ petition be decided in light of the
Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kiran Kumari Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
14964/2019), decided on 15.01.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
Court was about to dismiss the petition, then Mr. Bhansali, learned
senior counsel had sought an adjournment to complete his
instructions and hence, the petition cannot be heard on merit.
5. According to this Court, when the learned senior counsel
appeared for the petitioner on 29.09.2022 and sought time to
complete his instructions, the time was allowed with a view to
enable the counsel to decide as to whether the petitioner would
pursue the writ petition or would withdraw the same.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now, insisted
upon deciding the case on merit, in light of the judgment passed
in the case of Kiran Kumari (supra).
7. The facts as noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 29.09.2022 clearly shows that the petitioner had filed an
(4 of 4) [CW-11570/2022]
appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal on 05.08.2022
and the present writ petition on 06.08.2022. While doing the
same, neither the petitioner has disclosed to this Court the factum
of appeal having been filed in the Tribunal nor has he moved any
application before the Tribunal for withdrawal of the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time
of admission, the fact was disclosed before the Court that he has
already preferred an appeal and an application for withdrawal of
the same would soon be filed.
9. In the opinion of this Court, such assertion made by learned
counsel/petitioner appears to be false inasmuch as on 16.08.2022,
neither learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar singh was present in the
Court nor was the petitioner. It is to be noted that on such date
Ms. Shweta Bora appeared and only such counsel can make the
statement about the factum of having filed the appeal before the
Tribunal being disclosed.
10. This Court is of the view that the petitioner having failed to
disclose pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal has concealed
a material fact from this Court.
11. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed.
12. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
40-Arvind/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
