SHRI NAMOKAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN v. SHRI RAJAN VISHAL
CCP/648/2025 · 2025-08-28
Ganesh Ram Meena
Contempt Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21886 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 21886 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:34337] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 648/2025 Shri Namokar Jain S/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged About 76 Years, R/o S-105, 106 Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302018 ----Petitioner Versus
1. Shri Rajan Vishal, Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005
2. Smt. Chinmay Gopal, Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302005
3. Dr. Krishna Kant Pathak, Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005
4. State Of Rajasthan, Agriculture Department, Through Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Ms. Lipi Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG, alongwith Mr. Rahul Gupta Mr. Mahi Choudhary Mr. Hardik Sing Mr. Shubhendu Pilania HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order 28/08/2025
1. This contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of order dated 30.01.2025.
2. Vide order dated 30.01.2025, the Court disposed the writ petition with the directions to the State Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible
[2025:RJ-JP:34337] (2 of 2) [CCP-648/2025] strictly in accordance with law preferably not beyond a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
3. Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner has been decided by a reasoned and speaking order dated 27.08.2025. He has also place before this Court the order dated 27.08.2025, which is taken on record.
4. In view of the fact that the respondent have passed the
order on representation of the petitioner deciding his representation, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue this contempt petition.
5. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of.
6. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to him under the law, if he as any grievance as regards the order dated 27.08.2025.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /Satyendra/38