UNION OF INDIA v. DEO KARAN SINGH MEEL SON OF LATE SHRI PANNA LAL MEEL
CW/9811/2025 · 2025-08-25
Sanjeet Purohit, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22971 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 22971 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:33515-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9811/2025
1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Ports, Shipping And Water Ways, 1-Sansad Marg, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Director General, Light Houses And Light Ships, Deep Bhavan, A-13, Sector-24, Noida (U.P.)- 201301. ----Petitioners/Respondents Versus Deo Karan Singh Meel Son of Late Shri Panna Lal Meel, Aged About 77 Years, Resident of 7, Kanota Bag, Flat No. 201, Per Pearl Imperia, Takhteshahi Road, Jaipur- 302004 (Retired On 30/04/2007 From The Post Of Deputy Director General, Lighthouses And Lightships, Calcutta (Kolkata), West Bengal- 700043.). ----Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Bhan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order 25/08/2025
1. This is the petition filed by the Union of India assailing the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘CAT’) dated 24.01.2025, whereby the Tribunal directed to consider the representation of the petitioner/applicant therein and made observations with respect to the order passed by the High Court of New Delhi on 04.10.2023.
2. In compliance of the order passed by the CAT, the petitioners have also passed an order on 07.04.2025 denying the benefit under the earlier order passed by the Delhi High Court and also
[2025:RJ-JP:33515-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-9811/2025] claim raised by the respondent on the plea that the judgment sought to be relied on, was not ‘in Rem’ in ‘Personam’ and that the respondent’s representation and claim suffered from gross latches and delay.
3. After having decided the representation in light of the order passed by the CAT, we do not find reason coming forward for Union of India to challenge the order of CAT which they have complied with.
4. The Civil Writ Petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/36