M/S. SHRI GANPATI TUBEWELL COMPANY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
SAW/60/2024 · 2025-08-19
Avneesh Jhingan, Baljinder Singh Sandhu
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2290 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 2290 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:32503-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 60/2024 M/s. Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company, Through Proprietor Mahesh Kumar Mittal, Near New Bus Stand, Shahpura, Jaipur - 303103 (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Engineering And Ground Water Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 5105, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.
2. Additional Chief Engineer, Phed, Region-Ii, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Rahar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order 19/08/2025 This is an application (CMCW No.64/2025) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of fifty two days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application is allowed and delay of fifty two days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to DB Special Appeal Writ No.68/2024 (M/s Shri Ganpati Tubewell Company vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) dated 30.06.2025 wherein following order was passed:-
[2025:RJ-JP:32503-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-60/2024]
“Heard on Application No.48/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. Taking into consideration the cause shown in the application as also short period of delay, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Heard. Though number of grounds have been urged, taking into consideration that the impugned order is outcome of consent between the parties, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file review petition.” In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of in the same terms.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Anil/Diksha-31