Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State and ors

Anil Kumar Anand vs State and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided May 23, 2014

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1141240

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1141240
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: May 23, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar Anand

Advocate Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy

Respondent

State and ors

Excerpt

.....employment department, government of rajasthan, jaipur, respondent no.1 within a period of three days from today and the said authority is requested to decide such representation objectively and fairly after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. the petitioner in the first instance may appear before the said principal secretary on thursday 15.5.2014 and it is expected that such representation will be decided by the principal secretary of the said department within a period of one week from today.5. for a period of one week only and no further, the aforequoted interim order granted by this court shall continue and the further position would abide by the orders of the principal secretary of the concerned department.6. the present writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. no order as to costs. a copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.”. 3. the petitioner filed his representation on 14.05.2014, copy whereof is placed on record as annex.20 and as directed by this court, the representation was disposed of within a period of one s.b. civil writ petition no.3871/2014 anil kumar anand vs. state of rajasthan & ors. order dated 23/05/2014 3/8 week from the date of filing of the same vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (annex.22), which is assailed in the present writ petition.4. mr. a.k. rajvanshy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that not only the petitioner was not heard in the matter by the principal secretary but the issues raised in the representation have not been dealt-with by the principal secretary and a non-speaking order has been passed by him rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. the petitioner was also directed to appear before the said authority on 15.05.2014 whereas the said officer was not even attending the office on 15.05.2014 and, therefore, the order is in fact an exparte order. learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent no.3, arun kumar gupta, who.....

Full Judgment

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order ::::

23. d May, 2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Appearance: Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy ]. Mr. Rajat Dave ].- for the petitioner. -- BY THE COURT:

1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner.

2. In quick return to this Court, the petitioner has again filed the present writ petition on 20.05.2014 aggrieved by the disposal of his representation by the Principal Secretary of the Technical Education Department of Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22) in pursuance of the directions of this Court while deciding the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being SBCWP No.2101/2014- Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.05.2014 with the following directions: -

“4. Looking to the rival submissions and request made by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 2/8 is inclined to permit the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition with a liberty as aforesaid to make a suitable representation against such transfer/posting order Annex.6 dtd.3.3.2014 and Annex.8 dtd.4.3.2014 to the Principal Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, respondent No.1 within a period of three days from today and the said authority is requested to decide such representation objectively and fairly after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner in the first instance may appear before the said Principal Secretary on Thursday 15.5.2014 and it is expected that such representation will be decided by the Principal Secretary of the said Department within a period of one week from today.

5. For a period of one week only and no further, the aforequoted interim order granted by this Court shall continue and the further position would abide by the orders of the Principal Secretary of the concerned Department.

6. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.”. 3. The petitioner filed his representation on 14.05.2014, copy whereof is placed on record as Annex.20 and as directed by this Court, the representation was disposed of within a period of one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 3/8 week from the date of filing of the same vide the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22), which is assailed in the present writ petition.

4. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that not only the petitioner was not heard in the matter by the Principal Secretary but the issues raised in the representation have not been dealt-with by the Principal Secretary and a non-speaking order has been passed by him rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the said authority on 15.05.2014 whereas the said officer was not even attending the office on 15.05.2014 and, therefore, the order is in fact an exparte order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent No.3, Arun Kumar Gupta, who was subordinate to him and, therefore, having been given charge of the Director, (Training) now in the Directorate of Technical Education, he will be now the Head of the Department, to whom the petitioner will have to report and consequently the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary now on 19.05.2014, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

6. The impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annex.22) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 4/8 clearly stipulates that the petitioner appeared before the said authority on 14.05.2014 itself while giving his representation instead of 15.05.2014 and was heard in the matter. The justification of passing the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 have been explained in detail in the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 by the said Principal Secretary in the following manner: - “र जस न सरक र तकन क श क व भ ग कम क-प-8 (29)त. श ./2003-प र जयपर, द न क 19/5/2014 आ य च!क सखय 2101/2014 म# म नन य उच! नय य लय, ज(धपर द र प ररत आ द न क 12.5.2014 क कम म# श ए क आनन द र द न क 14.5.2014 क( ज पन पसतत ककय गय ए सन गय । ज पन म# उल3लख5त तथय7 ए रक र क स व भ ग य पत शलय7 क अ ल(कन ककय गय । प ; श आनन न व भ ग द र प ररत आ द न क 3.3.2014 ए 4.3.2014 पर मखय रप स आपव= प क ह?. । पकरण म# सककप तथय इस पक र ह?. :- 1. तकन क श क व भ ग म# नन क क ( प (1) नन क, पश कण (सयक नन क क प स कम(ननत) ए (2) नन क, पश कण (आरस ईरG क गठन क उपर नत) हI। उक (न7 हG प ननयशमत शण क ह?. । नन क, पश कण कप द नक 24.2.2007 क( व = व भ ग क आईर सखय 532 द न क 23.2.2007 क कम म# सलJ जत ककय गय जबकक ददत य नन क क प व = व भग क S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 5/8 आईर कम क 250 द न क 2.3.2009 त व चध व भग क सहमनत उनक आईर कम क 186/जरGएलआर (र )/09 द न क 6.7.2009 क द र सलJ जत ककय गय ह?. । अत: सपष ह?. कक व भ ग म# नन क (पश कण) क ( प सलJ जत ह?. । 2. नन क (पश कण) क प पर !यन व भ ग य प (नननत सशमनत क अशभ ष अनस र य(गयत सह ररयत क आध र पर ककय जत ह?. लजसक य(गयत भ रत म# व चध दर स वपत ककस व शव द लय स अशभय ततक क ककस भ 5 म# डरग , सरक र द र इस डरग क समत3य म नयत प प अहत , और सयक नन क क प पर त न ष क अनभ ह?. । न न प नन क, पश कण (आरस रG क शलए) प पर !यन हत य(गयत नन क (पश कण) क प क सम न हG ह?. । इस पक र (न7 प 7 पर !यन क य(गयत ए सम न ह?. इसक अनतररक इन (न7 प 7 क तनम न भ एक सम न 12000-16500 ह?. । 3. व भ ग द र द न क 12.10.2009 क( आरस ईरG पररष क गठन ए प 7 क सज J न ककय गय । इन न सलJ जत प 7 म# नन क क प भ सलUमशलत । यह प नन लय म# सलJ जत ककय गय ह?. (आ द न क 12.10.2009)। ष 2009-10 क नन क प क व भ ग य प (नननत सशमनत म# इन (न7 प 7 क( सलUमशलत ककय गय । व भ ग य प (नननत सशमनत द र श ए. क. न गर क( नन क (पश कण) क प पर न( नल प (नननत (द न क 26.10.2010 क( ननधन ह( ज न क क रण) ए श ए. क. आनन क( नन क क न सलJ जत प पर !यन क अशभ ष क गई अ त V तकन क S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 6/8 श क व भ ग म# नन क क ( प सलJ जत ह?. । अत: इन प 7 पर अलग-अलग अचधक ररय7 क प स पन ककय गय ह?. । आरस ईरG क Memorandum of Association क पररभ ष (अचधक रG ए सरWफ) क अनस र अचधक ररय7 ए सरWफ म# नन क सलUमशलत नहG ह?. । इस अनरप नय प नन लय म# सलJ जत ककय गय ह?.। 4. अभय न क तबन सखय 1 म# श आनन क यह अशभक न कक नन क (आरस ईरG) क प एकस ऑकफशसय( प ह?. ए इस अलग स भर नहG ज सकत ह?. आध रहGन ह?. कय7कक उक प नन लय म# सलJ जत ककय गय ह?. ए नन क पश कण क समकक ह?. । अत: प सननक दवष स ककस भ नन क क( आरस ईरG क क य स].प ज सकत ह?. । 5. उपर(क तबन सखय 2 क अनस र नन क (पश कण) ए न सलJ जत नन क, क (न7 प 7 पर !यन क य(गयत ए सम न ह?. इसक अनतररक इन (न7 प 7 क तनम न भ एकसम न ह?. । (न7 हG प 7 पर प स पन कननषत ए ररषत क आध र पर नहG बल3क जनदहत ए प सननक वय स क( दवषगत र5कर ककय ज त ह?. । अत: अभय न म# उल3लख5त श आनन क अशभक न कक उनस कननष अचधक रG क( नन क (पश कण) क प पर प स वपत ककय गय ह?., आध रहGन ह?. । यह भ आध रहGन क न ह?. कक नन क पश कण Exofficio पररषद क स सय सच! ह?. कय7कक (न7 नन क क प नन लय म# हI ए एक सम न य(गयत ह(न स आरस ईरG क क य हत प स पन पर ह हG स सय सच! ह?. । S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 7/8 व भ ग द र ज रG आ द न क 3.3.2014 द र श ए. क. आनन क( नन क (आरस ईरG) क प पर प स वपत ककय गय त आ द न क 4.3.2014 द र श अरण गप , सयक नन क क( क यक रG वय स क तaर पर नन क (पश कण) क प पर प स वपत ककय गय । ज( व भग दर जनदहत ए प सननक वयव क( दवषगत र5त हए ननणय शलय गय ह?., ज( पbण रप स व चध सUमत ह?. । अत: उपर(क तथय7 क व !न क आध र पर ज पन म# उ3लख5त आपव=य ननर ध र ह(न क क रण श आनन दर पसतत अभय न द न क 14.5.2014 ननरसत ककय ज त ह?. । Sd/- (चगरG र ज शसह) पम5 सन सच! , शम ए ननय(जन पनतशलवप ननUन क( सb!न ए आ शयक क य हG हत पवषत ह?. :- 1. व श ष सह यक, म . मत , तकन क श क व भ ग। 2. श अननल कम र आनन , नन लय, ज(धपर क( पसतत ज पन द न क 14.5.2014 क स भ म# सb!न । 3. नन क (पश कण), तकन क श क , प व चधक श क नन लय, ज(धपर। 4. रककत पत लG। Sd/- पम5 सन सच! , शम ए ननय(जन" 7. Thus, the issues raised in the earlier writ petition as well as now before this Court, have already been dealt-with by the Principal Secretary of the Department in the said order and it has been specifically mentioned that there are 2 (two) posts of Director in the said Department one for the Director (Training) in the Directorate and second, the Director (RCVET) and since there was no S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3871/2014 Anil Kumar Anand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Order dated 23/05/2014 8/8 separately specified post of Director in RCVET, Memorandum of Association, the said post of Director was also created in the Directorate, Technical Education, but these two posts carry same pay scales and there is no subordination of one to another, therefore, the contention raised by the present writ petitioner that the private respondent No.3 will act as a higher authority, to whom, the petitioner has to report, appears to misconceived. More so, in the impugned order dated 19.05.2014 rejecting petitioner's representation, it has been categorically stated that the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 04.03.2014 have been passed in the public interest as well as in the interest of administration. These administrative matters hardly require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the opportunity of representation against these orders was given to the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation, which has been availed by the petitioner and the impugned order has now been passed on 19.05.2014, which upon perusal as aforesaid and quoted above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same.

8. In view of above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

DJ/- S-134

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties Anil Kumar Anand vs State and ors Same Subject Land Acquisition