Home » India

Jaipur Development Authority's laxity in filing reply invites High Court rap

Friday, 24 January 2014 - 2:53pm IST | Place: Jaipur | Agency: DNA

Expressing its displeasure over Jaipur Development Authority’s lax attitude in submitting its reply on a petition even after 10 years, the High Court has imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on the civic body.

The court has also called the JDA commissioner to be present before it personally on January 30.

The single bench of Justice Manish Bhandari gave this decision while hearing the petition filed by Bhawna Soni on Thursday.

Petitioner’s lawyer informed the court that the JDA has failed to file a reply in the matter when the original petition was filed a decade ago. The court then asked the JDA lawyer to inform the court as why no reply was filed. The Following an unsatisfactory reply from him, the court summoned the JDC and also imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on JDA.

According to the details of the case, the JDA tribunal had issued an order in 2002 against the petitioner in a matter of the presence of a house door in a facility area. The petitioner had filed a petition then in the high court.

Meanwhile, the Rajasthan High Court has reinstated the Rajasthan Judicial Services officer Bhanwarlal Lamror by quashing the state government’s order dated March 31, 2010 in which he had been removed by given a compulsory retirement. The court has also ordered to give all the other benefits to Lamror.

The division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and JK Ranka gave this decision while hearing the petition filed by Lamror. In the petition, Lamror’s lawyer Shobhit Tiwari informed the court that the petition is a 1988 batch RJS officer. As per the details, Lamror had sent information to the high court regarding the cases he had disposed off during his probation. The court considered it wrong and issued a notice to him. Lamror’s representation was also rejected. In 2000, an adverse entry was made against him in his annual confidential report.

After a full court hearing against corruption charges on him, he was given voluntary retirement in 2010. He challenged the decision stating that he had given correct case disposal rate and only a part of his service record was considered by the full bench. On hearing the matter, the court cancelled his voluntary retirement and ordered all benefits to be given to the petitioner.

Jump to comments


Around the web