Himanshu v. State Of Rajasthan

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

Shri Ravi Jain, Commissioner (Panchayati Raj Department) Cum Secretary To Govt. (Inquiry) Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

4. Shri Sanwar Mal Verma, Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.

5. Dr. Virendra Meena, Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Contemnors/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat Mr. Ashish Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Mr. Ashutosh Udawat Mr. Sumit Purohit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 02/12/2025

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of the interim order dated 19.03.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2630/2024. It is submitted that the effect and operation of the order dated 11.02.2024, whereby the [2025:RJ-JP:48852] (2 of 6) [CCP-352/2024] petitioner was placed under suspension, was stayed by this Court, however, despite that the petitioner has not been permitted to join.

Aggrieved by the said interim order, the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Petition No.252/2024, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.04.2024. The said order was further assailed by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 36702/2024, however, the said SLP met the same fate and was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2025.

In the meanwhile, the present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner, during the pendency of which, no-confidence motion was moved by the members of Panchayat Samiti Uchchain, which was passed on 12.08.2024. As the contempt petition remained pending, the petitioner under legal advice, preferred a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the High Court to list and dispose of the contempt petition filed by him expeditiously. In the said writ petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.09.2025, after considering the entire factual matrix as placed before it by the petitioner, issued directions for the implementation of the interim order dated

19.03.2024. Paragraphs No. 6 to 9 of the order dated 01.09.2025 read as under:- “6. In the normal course, we would not have entertained the petition of this nature but the petitioner is seeking implementation of a relief that he has already got by invoking a remedy under Article 226. It is distressing to see that the petitioner has not received the benefit of direction [2025:RJ-JP:48852] (3 of 6) [CCP-352/2024] issued by the learned Single Judge, and the Division Bench, as upheld by this Court.

7. In these circumstances, all that we need to do is to ensure that the interim order dated 19.03.2024 is implemented without any further delay. In this view, we direct all authorities to implement the order dated

19.03.2024. The High Court shall also ensure that its order is implemented without any delay whatsoever.

8. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of and the accompanying interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

9. As we are directing implementation of the orders passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that there is no need for issuance of notice to the respondent-State.”

Thereafter, Misc. Application No.1912/2025 was moved by the State Government before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came up for consideration on 14.11.2025 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking note of the fact that there has been a material suppression and deliberate concealment by the petitioner of important facts, has not only recalled the order dated

01.09.2025, but has also dismissed the said writ petition after imposing a cost of Rs.5 lakh upon the petitioner. Paragraphs No. 4 to 6 of the order dated 14.11.2025 read as under:- “4. Be that as it may, returning back to the No Confidence Motion, we are informed that the Motion was taken up and in fact passed on 12.08.2024. Consequently, Election Notification was issued on 29.01.2025 and elections were held on 16.02.2025.

None of these facts find place in the narration of the synopsis or events in the writ petition. There is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the necessary facts in the writ petition.

E-converso, Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-contemnors, vehemently submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself has found that the case of the petitioner suffers from material suppression and deliberate concealment, no indulgence deserves to be granted. He further submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has withdrawn its order dated 01.09.2025 vide which compliance of the interim order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this [2025:RJ-JP:48852] (5 of 6) [CCP-352/2024] Court was directed, the petitioner can under no circumstances further press for the compliance of the interim order dated

19.03.2024.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. In the considered opinion of this Court, although the fact remains that the interim order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was admittedly not complied with by the respondents, however, it is the petitioner’s own act and conduct which compelled the Hon’ble Supreme Court to pass the order dated 14.11.2025 and to not only recall its order dated 01.09.2025, but also to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner, that too with the exemplary cost of Rs.5 lakh. The directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 01.09.2025 were very specific and required the implementation of the interim order dated 19.03.2024, which was also the prayer made in the present petition. However, once in the subsequent order dated 14.11.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally suppressed the necessary facts and has thus withdrawn its order dated 01.09.2025, there is no occasion for this Court to further proceed with the present contempt petition.

Both the judgments relied upon by the petitioner render no assistance to the petitioner, as the facts in the present case clearly evidence material suppression by the Petitioner himself and thus, are not at all applicable to the case in hand.

Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. While the conduct of the petitioner has itself been taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a cost of Rs.5 [2025:RJ-JP:48852] (6 of 6) [CCP-352/2024] lakh has been imposed, no further directions in respect of the conduct of the petitioner are required to be issued by this Court. Consequently, the present contempt petition stands dismissed. Notices stand discharged.

Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. sunita/1 (ANUROOP SINGHI),J