Mukesh Saini vs State Of Raj Thr Pr Secretary And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5065 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:23757]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1159/2017

                                             In

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15716/2016

Mukesh Saini, S/o Sohan Lal Saini, aged about 39 years, R/o
Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas, Alwar Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State       Of      Rajasthan         Through         Principal     Secretary,
         Department          Of    Local      Self    Government,          Government
         Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Nagar Parishad, Through Its Chairman Ashok Khanna,
         Church Road, Near Ghanta Ghar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
3.       Nagar Parishad, Through Its Commissioner Murari Verma,
         Church Road, Near Ghanta Ghar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
4.       Prem        Singh     S/o     Padam         Singh      Presently,   Presently
         Residing At 126, Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas,
         Alwar, Rajasthan.
5.       Smt. Roopwati W/o Prem Singh, Presently Residing At
         126, Behind Meena Dharamshala, Naya Baas, Alwar,
         Rajasthan.
6.       Pawan Arora, Director Local Body Department Local Self
         Government, Government Of Rajasthan, Near C-Scheme
         Phatak, Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG with Ms. Archana Mr. Kartar Singh Fauzdar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

18/09/2023

[2023:RJ-JP:23757] (2 of 2) [CCP-1159/2017]

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in

pursuance of their decision taken as per note-sheet dated

08.02.2016, charge-sheets have been issued to the erring

officials. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt

petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

copies of the charge-sheets submitted for perusal of this Court do

not bear signature of the disciplinary authority.

Heard. Considered.

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by

learned counsels for the respective parties, the order of this Court

dated 28.03.2023 and copies of the charge-sheet submitted for

perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents,

this Court is satisfied that there has been substantial compliance

of the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by this Court.

In view thereof, this contempt petition is dismissed.

The notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/28

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)