Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 578 (RAJ)

Ajay Kumar v. Fariduddin

2018-02-19

AJAY RASTOGI, DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

body2018
ORDER : 1. The contesting respondent Nos.1-4 are being represented by Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. and as per office report the respondent Nos.5, 6, 7 & 9 have already been served and Mr. Rahul Kamwar, Adv. put appearance on behalf of respondent No.9. The respondent No.8 is one of the officer of the respondent No.1, therefore, service upon him is treated to be sufficient. 2. Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv. made an oral request to dispense with service upon the respondent No.10 as no relief has been claimed against him. 3. Oral request is allowed & service upon respondent No.10 stands dispensed with. 4. However, office has pointed out delay in filing of the appeal & in support thereof a separate application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay has been filed, which is satisfactorily explained & deserves to be condoned. 5. The application u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed. Delay is condoned. 6. The present special appeal is directed against the order of ld. Single Judge dt. 20.04.2017 in SBCWP No.5416/2016 which has been disposed of placing reliance on the Coordinate Single Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar & Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 03.04.2017. 7. It is informed to this Court that against the order dt.03.04.2017 [Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra)], the State of Rajasthan has preferred D.B.S.A.W. No.1017/2017 & after hearing the parties the Division Bench of this Court set-aside the said order dt.03.04.2017 & disposed of the appeal with the following directions:- “5. The impugned order does not note the aforesaid facts. It was not a case where writ petition could have been allowed with the sweeping directions issued without granting appellant an opportunity to file a reply. 6. Disposing of the appeal we set aside the impugned order dated 03.04.2017 and restore Civil Writ Petition No.4582/2017 before the learned Single Judge. Appellants shall file a reply within six weeks. The writ petition would be listed before the learned Single Judge after six weeks.” 8. This Court has also decided certain special appeals in the light of the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Surendra Kumar Gurjar & Ors. 9. In the instant case also, the ld. The writ petition would be listed before the learned Single Judge after six weeks.” 8. This Court has also decided certain special appeals in the light of the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Surendra Kumar Gurjar & Ors. 9. In the instant case also, the ld. Single Judge has not examined the issue on merits and request made by the parties the writ petition was disposed of in light of the order passed in the case of Surendra Kumar Gurjar (supra) dt.03.04.2017. 10. After we have heard counsel for the parties & taking note of submissions made & also the fact that the ld. Single Judge decided the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment of another Coordinate Single Bench dt.03.04.2017, in our considered view the present order impugned is not sustainable & deserves to be set-aside. 11. Accordingly, the special appeal succeeds & allowed. 12. The order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 20.04.2017 is accordingly set-aside and the writ petition is restored and the State of Rajasthan & Ors./other respondents in the writ petition are at liberty to file reply. Let the matter be listed before the ld. Single Judge.