Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2418 (RAJ)

M/S EX-SERVICEMEN WIVES WELFARE SOCIETY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/6941/2026 · 2026-04-21

Sameer Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6941/2026 M/s Ex-Servicemen Wives Welfare Society, Jaipur Through President Umed Kanwar Aged 73 Years Having Office At A-46/g- 1, Vinoba Bhave Nagar, Near Nursery Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Agriculture And Horticulture, Department Of Agriculture, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 2. Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Through Chairperson And Managing Director, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015 3. Executive Director, Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 4. Deputy Director (Administration), Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Tikoo For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 21/04/2026 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026, the present petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite delivering optimal performance and providing justifiable reasons in his defense, the respondent-authorities wrongfully proceeded with the termination of his services. [2026:RJ-JP:16738] (2 of 2) [CW-6941/2026] 3. During the course of the hearing, this Court observed that the controversy at hand inherently involves highly disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner’s performance and the administrative grounds for termination. It is a settled position of law that such disputed questions of fact cannot be thoroughly examined or entertained within the circumscribed scope of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Taking note of the aforesaid observation, and after arguments were advanced at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to avail the appropriate alternate statutory remedy available under the law. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as prayed for, being granted. It is made clear that the withdrawal of the present petition shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner on merits. 6. It is expected that if the petitioner approaches the appropriate forum/authority, the said forum/authority shall consider and adjudicate the grievance of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with the law. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/3