HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 928/2023 The State Of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Pawan Kumar Sharma ----Respondent Connected With 1. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 931/2023 2. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 932/2023 3. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 975/2023 4. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 976/2023 5. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 977/2023 6. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 994/2023 7. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 995/2023 8. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1006/2023 9. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 161/2024 10. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 912/2023 11. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 896/2023 12. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 911/2023 13. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 978/2023 14. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1088/2023 15. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 115/2024 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General with Mr. Ayush Gehlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 24/04/2024 1. All these appeals have been filed by the appellant-State raising identical issue for consideration on the same or similar orders passed by the learned Single Judge. (2 of 3) [SAW-928/2023] 2. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Advocate General appearing for the State produced a copy of the order dated 26.02.2024, passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur in State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Ramashankar Pareek (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 881/2023) and batch of appeals, as also the order dated 24.11.2023, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. Gopal Sharma (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.912/2023). He submits that in all those cases, the delay in filing the appeal has been considered and condoned while allowing the applications, taking into consideration that the identical issue for consideration has already been taken up for consideration on merits in other appeals arising out of the same or similar orders raising common issues for consideration. 3. In view of above consideration, we are of the view that in these appeals also an opportunity should be granted to the State to argue on merits, as the issue has already been taken up for consideration on merits by condoning delay in other cases of same or similar nature. 4. Accordingly, applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals are allowed. 5. Mr. J.S. Bhaleria takes notice on behalf of the respondents in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.928/2023, 932/2023, 994/2023, 995/2023 and 1006/2023. Let copy of memo of appeals be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid cases. Thus, service in these cases be treated to be complete. 6. Issue notice to the respondents in other appeals on payment of PF within two weeks, returnable within three weeks. (3 of 3) [SAW-928/2023] 7. Learned counsel for the respondents is granted two weeks’ time to file reply to the stay application. 8. These cases would be heard on prayer for stay after three weeks. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant may bring it to the notice of the Court hearing the contempt matter that the application for stay is going to be considered in these matters after three weeks. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 54 to 61, 62, 65, 155 to 158- Ramesh/PoonamS/-