Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surya Nagri,Yatayat Salahkar Samiti vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 8 November, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13547 / 2017
Surya Nagri, Yatayat Salahkar Samiti (Registered) Through Its
President Syed Tahir Ali S/o Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged About 53
Years, Resident of Bangla No. K-7/13, Near Aai Mata Mandir, New
Jatavas, Maderana Colony, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Chief Secretary and Transport
Commissioner, Transport Office, Shakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Regional Transport Officer, R.T.O. Office, Jodhpur (Raj.)
3. District Transport Officer, Jodhpur (Raj.)
4. Shri Sanjay Singhal, System Analyst, Transport Office, Sahakar
Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Order 08/11/2017 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the orders dated 14.08.2017 and 16.08.2017 vide which system analysts directed the Regional Transport Officers of the State of Rajasthan as well as the District Transport Officer of some district to start website base 'Sarthi 4.0' and also ordered to close 'Sarthi 2.0' from the date of 21.08.2017. After receiving the order dated 14.08.2017, the District Transport Officer passed an office order directing the compliance of the order dated 14.08.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said order has been passed without jurisdiction and that the system (2 of 2) [CW-13547/2017] analysts was no one to give such a direction to the Regional Transport Officer of the State of Rajasthan.
A perusal of the order dated 14.08.2017 shows that the said order has been passed by his system analysts on the direction of the Commissioner and Chief Secretary. Moreover, the system analysts is an expert in the field. In any case, it is an order passed for convenience and internal functioning of the office.
No order can be passed by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India setting aside such an order as above.
Dismissed accordingly.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that he may be allowed to approach the concerned authority. Approaching the concerned authority and filing a representation is the choice of the petitioner for which no liberty is required in the facts of the present case.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
arvind/21