Kapoorchand Sharma vs Rajasthan State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5106 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6394/2023

Kapoorchand Sharma S/o Shri Mukut Bihari Sharma, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ramji Gate Mohalla Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Chomu House, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Executive Director, (Mechanical/Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Lohargarh Depot, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, through
                                VC
For Respondent(s)         :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

23/05/2023

1. Mr. Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner would feel satisfied, if the respondent-Corporation is

directed to consider petitioner's representation in light of the

Judgment dated 02.12.2021 rendered by the Division Bench of

this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 524/2018 (The

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Tara

Chand), expeditiously in accordance with law.

2. The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a

direction to the petitioner to address a representation before the

competent authority of the respondent-Corporation along with

[2023/RJJD/016694] (2 of 2) [CW-6394/2023]

web copy of the judgment dated 02.12.2021 rendered in D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No. 524/2018 and the certified copy of the

order instant within a period of four weeks.

3. In case, the representation is so addressed, the competent

authority shall consider the same in accordance with law including

the Division Bench judgment dated 02.12.2021, as early as

possible, preferably within a period of three months from the

receipt thereof.

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

6. 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

81-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)