Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M/S Sandeep Phenyol vs Sitaram Jat (2025:Rj-Jd:53594)
2025 Latest Caselaw 16531 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 16531 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 December, 2025

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Sandeep Phenyol vs Sitaram Jat (2025:Rj-Jd:53594) on 10 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53594]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Writ Contempt No. 350/2024

M/s Sandeep Phenyol, Through Its Proprietor Sandeep Sharma
S/o Sitaram Sharma Aged About 51 Years, R/o Shop No.20,
Street No.4, Durga Vihar Sri Ganganagar Mobile No. 93144-
14349 And E-Mail Address To Be [email protected]
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Sitaram Jat, Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
2.       Aashish Modi, Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.       Girjesh     Kant    Sharma,        District      Elementary        Education
         Officer Sri Ganganagar
4.       Lok Bandhu District Collector, Sri Ganganagar
5.       Krishna Kunal, Secretary, Education Department, Jaipur
6.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Jaipur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Ms. Kirti Pareek
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. R.P. Goswami for
                                   Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

10/12/2025

I.A. No.01/2025:-

1. The matter comes upon an application (I.A. No.01/2025) for

dispensing of service with respondent No.2.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she does not

want to proceed with the contempt against the respondent No.2.

3. Considering the submissions made, the application is

allowed. The name of the respondent No.2 is deleted from the

array of contemnors.

(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:21:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53594] (2 of 3) [WCP-350/2024]

I.A. No.02/2025:-

1. The matter comes upon an application (I.A. 02/2025) for

early listing of the contempt petition.

2. Considering the fact that post filing of the application, the

matter has been listing on various occasions, the application has

been rendered infructuous and dismissed accordingly.

S.B. Writ Contempt No. 350/2024:-

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-

compliance of the judgment dated 21.03.2023 passed by this

Court, whereby the direction was issued to the respondents to

release the necessary payments towards the supply of the product

in question made by the petitioner, within the period of two

months from today.

2. This Court had also quashed and set aside the order dated

27.06.2011 passed by the District Education Officer,

Sriganganagar as well as the correspondence dated 07.06.2011

issued by the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar with regard to

inquiry into the allegation levelled against the petitioner.

3. Post filing of the present contempt petition, the respondents

have filed the reply and thereafter a compliance report has been

filed, wherein after adjusting the payment already made, as per

the respondents, the total sum outstanding was Rs.2,25,645/-

which was required to be paid to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that today itself

the cheque of the requisite amount have been paid to the

petitioner through his counsel. He, therefore, asserts that nothing

survives for adjudication in the present contempt petition.

(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:21:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53594] (3 of 3) [WCP-350/2024]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was

delay in making the payment and thus interest upon delayed

payment was required to be paid.

6. Considering the fact that as far as the amount in question is

concerned, it has already paid, no case for contempt is made out.

7. The contempt petition is therefore dismissed. Notices issued

are discharged. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to

pursue his remedy as available in the law for claiming the interest

on the delayed payment, if so permissible.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 42-charul/-

(Uploaded on 11/12/2025 at 01:21:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter