Khiyaram Son Of Shri Kukmaram vs Mr. Abhay Kumar, The Principal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2588 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/003582]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 353/2022

                                         In

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10601/2021

1.       Khiyaram Son Of Shri Hukmaram, Aged About 34 Years,
         R/o Village Gudla Post Chuntisara, Tehsil Nagour, District
         Nagour (Rajasthan,) Presently Post As Constable Fc 697,
         Police Station Old Tonk , District Tonk (Rajasthan)
2.       Sitaram Jat Son Of Shri Panna Lal Jat, Aged About 31
         Years, R/o Village Akbar Nagar, Post Bagdi, Tehsil Peeploo,
         District Tonk (Rajasthan) Presently Post As Constable Fc
         183, Police Line Tonk , District Tonk (Rajasthan)
3.       Praveen Kumar Choudhary Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad
         Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kureda, Post
         Paasrotiya, Tehsil Peeploo, District Tonk (Rajasthan.)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                      Versus
1.       Mr.   Abhay      Kumar,        The      Principal         Secretary,   Home
         Department, Government Secretariat, State Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur (Rajasthan.)
2.       Mr. M.L. Lathar, The Director General Of Police, Lal Kothi
         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3.       Mr. Manish Tripathi, The Superintendent Of Police, Tonk,
         District Tonk (Rajasthan.)
4.       The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government
         Secretariat State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (Rajasthan)
                                                                     ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sitaram Jat, petitioner No.2, present in person Mr. Praveen Kumar Choudhary, petitioner No.3, present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with Mr. Udit Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment

[2023/RJJP/003582] (2 of 2) [CCP-353/2022]

02/03/2023

For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2022 for early

listing, the same is allowed. The contempt petition is heard today

on the joint request of the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of

this Court towards the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the

Superintendent of Police, District Tonk, would submit that the

representation filed by the petitioners was decided vide reasoned

and speaking order and hence, the contempt petition does not

survive.

The petitioners did not dispute the aforesaid position.

Heard. Considered.

This Court has, vide order dated 21.09.2021, contempt

whereof is alleged, directed the respondents to decide the

representation filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks.

Indisputably, the representation filed by the petitioners has been

decided by the respondents vide order dated 11.04.2022.

In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed.

Notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/108

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)