STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SMT MADHU UJJAWAL W/O SH. DHIRENDRA SINGH
WRW/12/2020 · 2025-08-14
Anand Sharma
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34222 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34222 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:31895] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 12/2020
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner Excise, Rajasthan, Abkari Bhawan, 2, Gumaniya Wala, Panchwati, Udaipur. ----Petitioners Versus
1. Smt. Madhu Ujjawal W/o Sh. Dhirendra Singh, aged about 38 Years, Ujjawal Niwas, Purani Ginani, Bikaner (Raj.). At Present Excise Inspector, Hanumangarh Circle, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankalp Vijay & Mr. Deepak Mittal on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order 14/08/2025 S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.47/2019
1. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner- applicant that against the order sought to be reviewed, earlier the review petitioner filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.873/2019 which was withdrawn on 30.08.2019 with a liberty to file review petition.
2. Thereafter, the instant review petition has been filed and delay occurred in filing the review petition is quite bona fide.
[2025:RJ-JP:31895] (2 of 2) [WRW-12/2020]
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the delay occurred in filing the review petition is condoned. S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.12/2020
1. This review petition has been filed for seeking review of
order dated 20.02.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6301/2011.
2.
Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has utterly failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record and rather seeks re-appraisal of the matter, which is impermissible in exercise of review jurisdiction.
3. Hence, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /7