[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suo Moto vs Akshay Sharma (2026:Rj-Jd:9816-Db) on 24 February, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9816-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 21/2024
Suo Moto
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Akshay Sharma, Superintendent/ In-Charge Of The
Cause-List Section. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.
2. Deepak Singh Rathore, Administrative Officer Judicial,
Criminal Section. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur,
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani (Amicus Curiae)
Mr. Vivek Shrimali assisted by
Ms. Yukti Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Mahaveer Singh
Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta
Mr. Aniket Tater
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
24/02/2026
1. This Court initiated the present contempt proceedings
pursuant to the suo moto order dated 22.02.2024 passed by
learned Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court, which reads as
follows:-
"1. At the time of mentioning (10:30 am) Mr.
J.V.S.Deora and Dr. A.P. Singh, learned counsel raised a
grievance that despite a clear order passed by this Court
on 20.02.2024 in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Applications
No.1038/2024 and 12718/2023 to list them on
22.02.2024, the same have not been listed in the cause
list.
2. Mr. Singh, learned counsel submitted that he comes
from Delhi and considering the urgency of the matter and
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9816-DB] (2 of 4) [CCP-21/2024]
the fact that the Court has substantially heard the matter
and given a day's time to learned Public Prosecutor to
respond, he stayed in Jodhpur with a hope that the matter
will be listed and heard today.
3. Members of the Bar present in the Court echoed the
same grievance that was raised by Mr. Deora and Mr. A.P.
Singh.
4. Learned counsel submitted that on and off the
litigants/lawyers are facing trouble that despite the Court's
dates, the matters are not being listed.
5. They submitted that the situation becomes worse
when it happens with bail applications, as many a times,
case diary is called and officer in-charge appears before
the Court from out of stations only to find that the case is
not listed.
6. On query being made by the Court, Court Master
informed that on 20.02.2024, next date of 22.02.2024
was given by the Court in the following matters:
S.No Particulars Party name(s)
1. CRL.M.(Bail) Bhupendra Vs. State of
12718/2023 Rajasthan
2. CRL.M. (Bail) Mahesh Vs. The State of
Rajasthan
3. CRL.M. (Bail) Lalit Vs. State of Rajasthan
4. CRL.M. (Bail) Vishna Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan
5. CRL.M.(Bail) 652/2024 Kalu Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan
6. CRL.M.(Bail) Varingaram Vs. State of
Rajasthan
7. CRL.M.(Bail) Ratanlal Vs. State of
Rajasthan
8. CRL.M.(Bail) Ravi Kumar Vs. State of
Rajasthan
9. CRL.M. (Bail) Lalit Kumar Vs. State of
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9816-DB] (3 of 4) [CCP-21/2024]
1038/2024 Rajasthan
10. CRL.M. Radharam@Radhakishan
Vs. State of Rajasthan
(Bail)1875/2024
11. CRL.M.(Bail) Birmaram@Brhmaram Vs.
State of Rajasthan
12. CRL.M.(Bail) Bajrang Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan
7. Court Master informed that files of aforesaid matters
were sent to the concerned Clerk (in the morning hours of
21.02.2024).
8. The matter calls for serious and immediate
intervention. Not listing of matters/files even after fixing
the next date by the Court, amounts to interference in
administration of justice.
9. Let a notice of contempt be issued to
Superintendent/In-charge of the Cause-list Section and
Administrative Officer Judicial, Criminal Section as to why
proceedings of contempt be not initiated against them and
any other officials, if found to be negligent and derelicting
towards their duties?
10. Notices are made returnable on 11.03.2024.
11. A case be registered separately.
12. Registry is hereby directed to list all the aforesaid
matters, (which were directed to be listed today) in
supplementary cause list today itself."
2. Pursuant thereto, reports were called for, affidavits were filed
and appropriate responses have been placed on record.
3. Mr. Prateek Gattani, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that
on 18.08.2023, in Manoj V. State of U.P. (Contempt Petition
(Criminal) Diary No(s).32894/2023 in SLP (Crl.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9816-DB] (4 of 4) [CCP-21/2024]
No(s).7696/2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, passed
the following orders:-
"1. The present Contempt Petition is nothing else but
an abuse of process of law.
2. Merely because the matter is not listed on the date
specified by the Court, cannot be a ground to initiate
contempt petition against the Secretary General and
Registrar (Listing) of this Court.
3. There are certain difficulties on account of which
the matters cannot be listed, even if the Court directs the
matter to be listed on a particular date.
4. Filing of contempt petition for not listing such a
matter is, in our view, an attempt to browbeat the
Registry. Such an attempt is highly deprecated.
5. We, therefore, dismiss the contempt petition with
costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand Only) to be paid to the Supreme Court Bar
Association, which will be used for Library purposes.
6. After the aforesaid order was dictated, Dr. Adish C.
Aggrawala, learned President of the Supreme Court Bar
Association has tendered an unconditional apology on
behalf of the petitioner. As such, the order of costs stands
recalled.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
3. This Court, upon consideration of the record, the
explanations furnished, the reports submitted, the unconditional
apology tendered, and in overall perspective, does not find it
appropriate to continue the contempt proceedings. Accordingly,
the contempt proceedings are hereby discharged.
4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
21-nirmala/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 03:01:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
