Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12359 (RAJ)

M/S SHYAM BABA STONE CRUSHER COMPANY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/678/2023 · 2026-08-07

Anand Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:31160] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 678/2023 CNR: RJHC020001562023 | URN: CW / 1297U / 2023 M/s Shyam Baba Stone Crusher Company, Village Kajri Kharkada, Post Patan Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. Through Partner Ramesh Phogat S/o Shri Hawa Singh Phogat Age About Years R/o Charkhi Dadari, District Bhiwani, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Additional Director, Directorate Of Mines And Geology Department, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Mines Department, Mines And Geology Department, Udaipur. 4. The Assistant Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Department Neem Ka Thana, Sikar. 5. S.m.e., Mines And Geology Department, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Gupta for Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/08/2026 1. Application for early listing is allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 3. Both the learned counsel appearing for the parties jointly submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by vide order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition [2026:RJ-JP:31160] (2 of 2) [CW-678/2023] No.19173/2023 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein following directions have been given:- "4. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the revision has been dismissed as time barred. The date of communication has not been considered by the authority while deciding the issue of limitation. 5. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for decision afresh in accordance with law." 4. In view of the consensus arrived at between learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and with the same directions as given in the case of Kamlesh Devi (supra). 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J 71/DIVYA