Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14053 (RAJ)

NIRBHAY SINGH S/O SHRI DHARM SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

SAW/433/2025 · 2025-05-05

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Mukesh Rajpurohit

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:18880-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 433/2025 Nirbhay Singh S/o Shri Dharm Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Malipura, Post Iklehra, Tehsil Deeg, Bharatpur, Rajasthan- 321203 ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 05/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. Mr. Samee Khan, associate of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG enters appearance on behalf of the respondents on advance copy and prays for short time to seek instructions in the matter. 3. The only submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that while the petition has remained pending, imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- upon the petitioner who is an unsuccessful candidate even before decision of the case, on merits, on provisional basis is not only premature but is too harsh. [2025:RJ-JP:18880-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-433/2025] 4. We find that the learned Single Judge imposed a cost on provisional basis even before the decision of the writ petition and the matter has remained pending. For that reason, we are inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge to the limited extent that the payment of the cost shall not be effected and will ultimately depend on the final decision of the writ petition. 5. The appeal is accordingly, disposed of. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ NAVAL Gandhi /Gaurav/32