Skip to content


Chimana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1709/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)371
AppellantChimana Ram
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....of india - article 226--alternative remedy--petitioner aggrieved by order of divisional irrigation officer--remedy by way of appeal to superintending engineer available to petitioner--held, petition is not maintainable.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained..........the notice he could have preferred an appeal on that basis after he had come to know of impugned order. thus the petitioner had an alternative remedy. besides that, the question of service of notice has become a disputed question of fact in which this court would not enter.3. in the above reasons the writ petition is dismissed summarily.
Judgment:

M.C. Jain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the Divisional Irrigation Officer, Hanumangarh Junction dated 13-6-1980. About one year and five months have passed. The petitioner's contention that he was not served with notice, is also disputed as an affidavit has been placed on record of Jawahar Singh to the effect that notice was given to Chimanaram and his thumb impression was put on the original notice. It may be stated that the ptitioner had a remedy of appeal before the Superintending Engineer against the order of Divisional Irrigation Officer. If the petitioner was not served with the notice he could have preferred an appeal on that basis after he had come to know of impugned order. Thus the petitioner had an alternative remedy. Besides that, the question of service of notice has become a disputed question of fact in which this court would not enter.

3. In the above reasons the writ petition is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //