Narayan Lal Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2557)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4608 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Lal Parihar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2557) on 15 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:2557]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 803/2019

Narayan Lal Parihar S/o Shri Jasraj Parihar, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of Village Atbada, Tehsil Sojat, City, District Pali.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Medical And Health Department.

2. V.k. Mathur, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Sawasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Mukul Sharma, Additional Director, Medical Health And Welfare Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.

4. Rampal Mirdha, Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pali.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Manoj Bohra



                          JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                          Order

15/01/2025

1. The present contempt petition raises grievances that the

respondents have not complied with the order dated 05.10.2018

which co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed in petitioner's

favour in his writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

3308/2018, wherein relying upon Division Bench judgment dated

17.12.2015 in the case of Govind Dan Charan Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.

2. Since the order was passed in the year 2018, even notices

have not been issued to the respondents and by the time, many

incumbents in the office of the respondents must have changed.

[2025:RJ-JD:2557] (2 of 2) [WCP-803/2019]

3. In response to Court's query, as to whether, the order dated

05.10.2018 still remains to be complied with, Mr. Bohra, learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not in a position to

apprise the Court with certitude about the factum of compliance of

the order under consideration, as despite his best efforts he was

not able to contact his client.

4. In view of the aforesaid and considering that the order was

passed way back on 05.10.2018, this Court has every reason to

believe that the order must have been complied with.

5. The present contempt petition is, therefore, disposed of

accordingly.

6. Needless to observe that if the order dated 05.10.2018 still

remains to be complied with, the petitioner shall be free to move

application for revival of the present contempt petition.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 70-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)