Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALRAM SHARMA versus RAJ.STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MIL

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALRAM SHARMA v RAJ.STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MIL - CW Case No. 3651 of 2000 [2006] RD-RJ 1899 (8 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT BENCH JAIPUR

JUDGMENT

Balram Sharma Vs. Rajasthan State Ganganagar

Sugar Mills Ltd. & Others

(SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3651/2000) : 8th September, 2006.

Date of Judgment :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KS RATHORE

Mr. Mahendra Shah, for the petitioner.

Mr. Virendra Lodha, for the respondents.

This writ petition is preferred against the orders impugned dated 18/19.7.85 and 8.8.96 on the ground that similarly situated person Shri Kana Ram has been given benefit as Kana Ram has preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 132/87 which was allowed vide judgment dated 17th July, 1991 and in the Special Appeal, the

Division Bench of this Court while allowing the appeal has observed as under:-

"We have gone through the order Annexure-7 and we are of the opinion that since out of 6 persons whose names are mentioned in Ex.7 only respondent Kana Ram had filed the writ petition, the order should have been confined only for granting relief to the petitioner/respondent. There is therefore, no need to issue notice to respondent. We, therefore, direct that the order dated 18th July, 1985 (Annexure-7) shall stand quashed only so far as the respondent Kana Ram is concerned. Therefore, the order of learned Single Judge dated July 17, 1991 shall be confined only so far as the respondent Kana Ram is concerned and shall not be applicable to any other person whose names are mentioned in the order dated July 18, 1985 and who has not filed any writ petition against the order. The Special

Appeal is allowed accordingly".

Thus, in view of the direction of the Division Bench, recommendation with regard to the petitioner has not been declared.

Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties, it is not disputed by the respondent that the recommendation has been placed under sealed cover and the ratio decided by the Division Bench and Single Bench though with regard to Kana Ram but it is not disputed that the case of the petitioner is also similar to that of Kana Ram.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it proper to direct the respondent to declare the result of the recommendation of the screening committee forthwith and further directed to do the needful in accordance with the recommendation made by the screening committee. So far as quashing and setting aside of impugned orders dated 18/19.7.85 and 8.8.96 is concerned, no case for any interference whatsoever is required by this court as no case on merit is made out.

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(KS RATHORE), J.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.