Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lalit Kumar Arya vs The N.P.C.I.L. Npcil And Ors ... on 19 November, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:46783]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4389/2017

Lalit Kumar Arya S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Arya, Resident Of
Type 3/33L, Anupratap Colony, Rawatbhata, District- Chittorgarh.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       The Nuclear Power Corporation India Limited Npcil,
         Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Npcil,
         Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094.
2.       Shri T.j. Kotisheoran, The Site Director And Chairman,
         Local       Management        Committee           Lmc,     Atomic    Energy
         Central School Aecs, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh-
         323307
3.       The Director Hr, Npcil, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094.
4.       Shri R.l. Bunkar, Manager Hr, Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site,
         Anushakti Via Kota, District Chittorgarh 323303.
5.       Shailesh Mohan S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Resident Of T-3/41
         K, Anupratap Colony, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
6.       Dadhich Kumar S/o Shri Mahipal Singh, Resident Of T-
         3/29A,        Anupratap          Colony,         Rawatbhata,        District-
         Chittorgarh.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     None present.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Shailendra Kumar on behalf of
                                   Mr. Rituraj Singh Bhati.



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order 19/11/2024

1. This petition was filed sometime in the year 2017 inter alia assailing an order dated 17.03.2017 (Annex. 21) transferring the petitioner.

(Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:40:11 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:46783] (2 of 2) [CW-4389/2017]

2. When called out for hearing, none appears for the petitioner. It appears that by sheer passage of time, the nature of relief sought by the petitioner is either rendered infructuous owing to the subsequent development and/or he otherwise seems to have acquiesced to his fait accompli. That is why perhaps, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Dismissed for non-prosecution with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application, if any cause survives.

4. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 236-Mohan/-

(Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:40:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)