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 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Mool Chand And Anr vs State (Rural Develop An Panchayati ) Ors on 5 January, 2017

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14286/2016
1. Mool Chand S/o Sh. Devilal Kahar, aged about 75 years,
resident of Mukam Post Tordi, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk
(Rajasthan).
2. Bhola Shankar Sharma S/o Shri Narsingh lal Sharma, aged
about 78 years, resident of Village Rajmahal , Tehsil Deoli, District
Tonk, (Rajasthan).
                                                                 ...Peititioner




                                    VERSUS



1. State of Rajasthan through, Principal Secretary cum Commissioner,
Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk.

3. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Toda Raisingh, District Tonk.

4. Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Deoli, District Tonk.

                                                                ..Respondents.

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.R. Kumawat. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order 05/01/2017 It is submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of "Jagdish Bhanoda versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.", decided on 29.07.2009 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.773/2009. The persons similarly situated have already been given benefit of the said judgment by the respondents vide order dated 10.11.2014. The petitioner/s given liberty to make representation to the (2 of 2) [CW-14286/2016] respondents in the light of the judgment in the case of Jagdish Bhanoda and respondents may be directed to consider the representation.

In view of the limited prayer, writ petition is disposed of with liberty sought for. In case of Jagdish Bhanoda, respondents are directed to consider the same in the light of the directions given in the judgment supra if it applies to the facts of this case. The representation would be decided by a speaking order within three months from the date of its receipt.

(Dr. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI) J.

Karan

40.