Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 March, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Writ Contempt No. 981/2021
Ashok Parihar S/o Himta Ram Parihar, Aged About 59 Years, B/c
Mali, R/o Sashtri Nagar, Jalore (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Mines
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Subodha Agarwal, Principal Secretary Mines And Geology
Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur
Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur.
3. Dr. K.v. Pandya, Director Mines And Geology Department
Directorate, Udaipur.
4. Dharmendra Lohar, The Superintending Of Mining
Engineer, Khanij Bhawan, 6, West Patel Nagar, Ratanada,
Mines And Geology Department Jodhpur.
5. Deepak Gehlot, The Mining Engineer, Khanij Bhawan, 6,
West Patel Nagar, Ratanada, Mines And Geology
Department Jodhpur.
6. Rajesh Hada, Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology
Department, Jalore (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted with
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
27/03/2023
1. The present contempt petition alleges non - compliance of
the order dated 15.07.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9599/2014.
2. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that the Division Bench's judgment in the case of
Federation of Sand Stone Mining Industries Association &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. rendered on 31.07.2013
which was relied by the Court while passing the order dated
(2 of 2) [WCP-981/2021]
15.07.2015 has been challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court and its effect and operation thereof has been stayed.
3. He submitted that the contempt petition, therefore, deserves
to be dismissed.
4. Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that may be, the order of the Division Bench has been
stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, but so far as petitioner's
case is concerned, the State has not even filed an appeal against
the subject order.
5. In the facts of the present case, since the Division Bench's
judgment has been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this
Court may or may not like to continue with the proceedings for
contempt but, since no challenge to the order dated 15.07.2015
(passed in petitioner's favour) has been made, the State cannot
refuse to comply with the order under consideration, because the
judgment passed by this Court on 15.07.2015 has attained
finalities and the same is binding between the parties involved.
Said order has its own implication and bearing. The State's
approach amounts to grant interim order unto itself.
6. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Additional Advocate General, at
this juncture prays for and is granted six weeks' time to complete
instructions and impress upon the State to do the needful.
7. List this case in the first week of July, 2023.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
111-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
