Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27504 (RAJ)

SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA S/O SHRI ENAK CHAND v. DR. R. VENKATESHWARAN, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

CCP/1219/2019 · 2025-09-15

Sanjeet Purohit, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:37436-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1219/2019 1. 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. 1/4. 1/5. Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Enak Chand, Aged About 66 Years, (Since Deceased) And Through Legal Heirs- Usha Sharma W/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No. B-586-87, Murlipura Scheme, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Navneet Sharma S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. B-586-87, Murlipura, Scheme, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Sarita Sharma D/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma W/o Vikrant Dubey, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ucchain, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Savita Sharma D/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma W/o Sipin Vyas, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Heera Das Bus Stand Ke Pass, Bharatpur, (Rajasthan). Neha Sharma D/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma W/o Prashant Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gandhi Colony, Infront of Mahindra Showroom, National Highway, Bus Stand Road, Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Shri Sayed Ali Moini S/o Shri Abdul Hai, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Plot No. 1/396, Van Vihar Colony, Delhi Bye- Pass Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Dr. R. Venkateshwaran, Principal Secretary, Rajasthan Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Shri Nathmal Didel, Officiating Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner. 3. Dr. Mohd. Habeeb, Secretary, Managing Committee, Anjuman Talimul Muslemeen, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur Through Its Secretary. 4. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department of [2025:RJ-JP:37436-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-1219/2019] Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ------Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chinmaya Saxena, Asst. G.C. Mr. Sachin Singh, AAAG Mr. Tanishq Aditya Parmar Mr. Pradeep Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 15/09/2025 1. The issue involved in this contempt petition has already been adjudicated by this Court in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1666/2018 (Dr. Anil Kumar Mathur & Ors. vs. Mr. Ashutosh A.T. Pednekar & Ors.) and other connected matters decided on 21.08.2025, wherein this Court has held as under : “17. It is reiterated that the scope of interference by this Court in contempt proceedings are very limited and the fresh adjudication of the claims of the contempt petitioners with regard to the part of benefits not allowed by the State Government/ Educational Institution looking to their peculiar facts cannot be done in the contempt proceedings. Since the respondents herein have considered the claim of the contempt petitioners and have already passed respective orders in the individual cases. The grievance, if any, left can be adjudicated before the appropriate authority / Court / Tribunal, however the same would not amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court and, [2025:RJ-JP:37436-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-1219/2019] therefore, also the present contempt proceedings are not maintainable. 18. We are also aware of the limited power of the Court while deciding the contempt proceedings and we refrain from enlarging the scope of contempt petition, especially when there is an availability of statutory forum of Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutional Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), which is competent to examine the claim of the individuals and pass orders relying upon the orders passed in the case of Bhagwan Das Todi (supra). The directions issued by the Tribunal are akin to a decree passed by the civil Court and is executable in terms of Section 27 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. 19. We, therefore, find that there is no deliberate or willful non-compliance of Court's order on behalf of the respondents. The contempt petitions are wholly misconceived and the same are accordingly, dismissed.” 2. In view of the above, the present Civil Contempt Petition is also dismissed, mutatis mutandis. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Amit/Ritu/89