Himmat Raj Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8845 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36627]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6480/2021

Himmat Raj Chouhan S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Mandir Wala Mohalla, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. The Additional Commissioner And Joint Secretary (First), Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. The Administrator Cum Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti-Phalodi, District-Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

                                                                        ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                :    Mr. Shailesh Agarwal
For Respondent(s)                :    Mr. Manish Tak



                           JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                           Order

30/10/2023

1. On 28.04.2021, following interim order was passed:

"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 (Annex.1) is contrary to judgment dated 20.01.2020, passed in a batch of writ petitions, led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2019 :

Chandra Kanta Vs. State & Anr., inasmuch as, the State Government has not provided any place of posting and has issued a sweeping

[2023:RJ-JD:36627] (2 of 3) [CW-6480/2021]

direction to transfer the petitioner outside the Assembly area of Phalodi.

2. Learned counsel submits that in compliance of said order dated 31.12.2020, another order dated 06.01.2021 has been passed.

3. The matter requires consideration.

4. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable within six weeks.

5. Meanwhile, effect and operation of order dated 06.01.2021(Annex.4) qua the petitioner shall remain stayed in case the petitioner has not been relieved so far.

6. Connect with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3988/2021."

2. Mr. Manish Tak, learned counsel for the respondent - State

submitted that the petitioner has misled and persuaded the Court

to pass the interim order in his favour, while contending that the

issue is covered by the Judgment rendered in the case of Chandra

Kanta Vs. State & Anr, whereas it was not.

3. He highlighted that in the case of Chandra Kanta (supra),

the issue involved and decided was, that the State cannot pass

order of transfer without assigning a place of posting and leaving

the same to the mercy of the subordinate authority or by

delegating him such power. He pointed out that in petitioner's

case the place of posting namely, Panchayat Samiti Luni is

mentioned in the transfer order and hence, the issue is not

covered by the judgment of Chandra Kanta (supra).

4. The submission made by Mr. Tak as to the ratio laid down in

the case or Chandra Kanta (supra) appears to be correct; but the

[2023:RJ-JD:36627] (3 of 3) [CW-6480/2021]

act of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not fall in the

ambit of misleading.

5. Be that as it may. Since, the interim order has continued

for more than two years, without deciding the case on merit, the

interim order 28.04.2021, is made absolute and it is hereby

ordered that impugned transfer order will not be given effect to

qua the petitioner.

6. The respondent shall however be free to pass fresh order

and transfer the petitioner, in accordance with law, obviously, if

administrative exigency so warrants.

7. With these directions/observations, the writ petition as well

as stay petition stand disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 52-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)