Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27707 (RAJ)

SANJAY KUMAR S/O RAMNARAYAN v. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

CW/12462/2025 · 2025-09-01

Anand Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:34867] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12462/2025 Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramnarayan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Singodada, Police Station Balanra, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head Office, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent of Police, District Sikar. 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station Balara, District Sikar. 5. The Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Coporation, Sikar Depot, Sikar. 6. Subita D/o Maggaram, W/o Sanjay Kumar, R/o Behind Housing Board Depot, Singdoda, P.S. Balara, District Sikar. 7. Moolchand Mawaliya S/o Boduram Mawaliya, R/o Behind Housing Board Depot, Bhadala Ki Dhani, Palsana, P.S. Ranoli, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Kant on behalf of Mr. Upendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner is holding the post of ‘Conductor’ in respondent- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. On account of her [2025:RJ-JP:34867] (2 of 2) [CW-12462/2025] being in illicit relations with some other person as well as living with him in the manner to lead life as his wife, the petitioner submitted a complaint before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director-RSRTC, Jaipur on 06.06.2024. However till date, no action whatsoever has been taken. 2. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the record. 3. The petitioner has utterly failed to disclose his locus as well as violation of any of his fundamental as well as statutory rights. 4. Under these circumstances, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 5. Stay application, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/14