Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30827 (RAJ)

NASREEN BAHLIM D/O SHAFI MOHAMMED v. SMT. GAYATRI A. RATHORE

CCP/908/2024 · 2025-03-10

Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:10760] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 908/2024 1. Nasreen Bahlim D/o Shafi Mohammed D/o Shafi Mohammed, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 86 Ward No. 9, Anantpura, Tehsil Ladpura Distt. Kota Rajasthan 2. Narendra Singh Tomar S/o Shri Khem Singh Tomar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Anand Nagar Colony, Saipau Road, Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur Rajasthan 3. Mohammad Suhel Mansoori S/o Mohammad Iqbal Mansoori, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 545 Sector 4 Keshavpura, Near Ram Janki Mandir, Kota Distt. Kota Rajasthan 4. Mukesh Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Devilal Nagar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bilasara, Kanwarpura Khanpur, Distt. Jhalawar Rajasthan 5. Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Devi Lal Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shittla Colony, Hindaun City Distt. Karoli, Rajasthan 6. Gaurav Sharma S/o Arya Mitra Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jagdishpura Road, Sharma Krishi Farm, Kelwara Tehsil Shahabad, Distt. Baran Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Gayatri A. Rathore, Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Shri Rakesh Sharma, Additional Director (Administration) Medical And Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harsh Parashar, Adv. for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA [2025:RJ-JP:10760] (2 of 2) [CCP-908/2024] Order 10/03/2025 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that pursuant to the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by this court, the representation filed by the petitioner has been decided. Therefore, no contempt, as alleged, is made out. None present on behalf of the petitioners to deny the aforesaid fact. In view of the above, this contempt petition stands disposed of. Notices stand discharged. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /156