Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar Dave vs Rajasthan State Road Development And ... on 27 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:24036]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 46/2024
Suresh Kumar Dave S/o Late Shri Paras Ram, Aged About 56
Years, R/o E-345, Hudco Quarters, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction
Corporation Ltd., (A Government Of Rajasthan
Undertaking), Through The Managing Director, Setu
Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Dongari, Jaipur-Agra Byepass,
Jaipur.
2. The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development
And Construction Corporation Ltd. Ward No. 1 H.no. 41,
Tulsi Nagar, Sirohi (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Mehta
Mr. Jubin Mehta
Ms. Taniya Tuli
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Darshan Jain
Mr. Vinay Jain
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
27/05/2024
1. The present review petition has been preferred by the
petitioner seeking review of the order dated 01.05.2024, passed in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12647/2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner began his submission with
an emphatic assertion that counsel for the parties had satisfied
the Court about petitioner's entitlement for actual benefits from
the year 2011 and therefore, the observation made in para Nos.
16 to 19 of order dated 01.05.2024 deserves to be reviewed and
the order needs to be corrected.
[2024:RJ-JD:24036] (2 of 5) [WRW-46/2024]
3. In response to the assertion so made, the Court observed
that had the same been clarified, there was no occasion for the
Court to make detailed specific observation as made in para Nos.
16 and 19 of the order, particularly when, a web copy of the order
with suggested correction had been handed over to the Court.
4. Mr. Pankaj Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner stuck to
his stand and reiterated that a clarification regarding the date
from which the actual benefits ought to have been given, had duly
been offered by him and by Mr. Darshan Jain and despite having
clarified the position that the benefits be made available from the
year 2011, the Court has erroneously confined the actual benefits
to be given from 17.08.2023.
5. Such being the position, Mr. Vinay Jain/Mr. Darshan Jain,
learned counsel for the respondents were called and asked about
what had transpired on 01.05.2024. They submitted that the case
neither reached nor was called out, but it was mentioned, while
the Court was rising after the Court hours were over.
6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents frankly
accepted the fact that the reasons for giving the benefits from the
year 2011 were not pointed out. He added that since he was
convinced that the same should be allowed from the year 2011,
he had agreed to the corrections which was suggested by Mr.
Mehta and consented to such modification while conceding that
the case was covered by the judgment given in the case of
Prakash Chandra Joshi.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2024:RJ-JD:24036] (3 of 5) [WRW-46/2024]
8. This Court is pained to record that while arguing the review
petition, learned counsel made repeated and forceful assertion
that the reasons for granting benefit from the year 2011 were
explained to the Court; whereas in memo of review petition,
particularly in para No.4 thereof, what had transpired during the
Court proceedings (on 01.05.2024) has been stated somewhat
differently.
9. Relevant part of the submissions made in para No.4 of the
memo of the review petition is reproduced herein:-
"However, due to having misunderstanding of
the counsels about furnishing the explanation
about admissibility of grant of actual benefit, the
verbal submissions could not have been
made."
10. The forceful assertion repeatedly made during the Court
proceedings today, is thus contrary to what has been stated in
memo of review petition and what has been stated by Mr. Jain in
the Court, today.
11. Learned Court Master's record (cause list dated 01.05.2024)
shows that the matter could not be taken during the Court hours
and the matter listed prior to this case (serial No.659) and other
matters were adjourned as not reached. He further submitted
that even the diary of the Steno of that date does not contain any
dictation given in the Court and what Mr. Darshan Jain has
submitted is correct that the matter was mentioned, when the
[2024:RJ-JD:24036] (4 of 5) [WRW-46/2024]
Court was rising and a web copy of the order with correction was
handed over to the Court to pass order on those lines.
12. While recording its displeasure and expressing its concern
about the manner in which learned counsel has made submission,
which are not only contrary to the record of proceedings, but also
factually incorrect, as noticed above.
13. Be that as it may. By way of the order dated 01.05.2024
under review passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12647/2023,
this Court had specifically denied the benefit of regularization from
the year 2011 and given reasons for the same. The Court has
rather clearly held that the same shall be granted from
17.08.2023, when the subject writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12647/2023) was filed. The petitioner had not explained the
delay in preferring the said writ petition, in which the order of
regularization dated 06.08.2015 (making it effective from
11.03.2014) was challenged.
14. It is noteworthy that said Prakash Chandra had challenged
the order of regularization, which in his case was passed on
20.07.2011, by way of filing the writ petition in the year 2015
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.606/2015), which came to be decided
on 19.04.2022. Whereas, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 06.08.2015 after a delay of 8 years; perhaps coming to
know about the order passed in the case of Prakash Chandra.
15. That was the reason for which this Court by its order under
review has though made the order of regularization to be effective
from 01.11.1988 has granted the actual benefit from 17.08.2023,
when the petitioner for the first time challenged the date of his
[2024:RJ-JD:24036] (5 of 5) [WRW-46/2024]
regularization by filing the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12647/2023).
16. Maybe, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents agreed
to the petitioner's request and gave his tacit consent to pass order
in terms of what was suggested by Mr. Mehta. But, the Court has
passed an order different than what was suggested by the
petitioner - for which reasons have been given in para Nos.16 to
18. The reasons may or may not be tenable or sustainable, they
can be challenged in accordance with law. The same, however,
cannot be construed to be an error apparent on the face of record.
17. The review petition being an appeal is disguise, is dismissed;
however, without any cost.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
2-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
