Rajasthan High Court
CCP/682/2026 of MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN, on 3 September 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 682/2026 CNR: RJHC020381192026 | URN: CCP / 718U / 2026 1. Mohammed Hussain S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Mandawa House, Near Sikar Hotel, Sansar Chand Road, Jalupura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.). 2.
[2026:RJ-JP:35694]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 682/2026
CNR: RJHC020381192026 | URN: CCP / 718U / 2026
1.
Mohammed Hussain S/o Mohammed Ibrahim, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Mandawa House, Near Sikar Hotel, Sansar Chand Road, Jalupura, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
2.
Rajneesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 3 Ka 180, Shivaji Park, District Alwar (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.
Smt. Gayatri A. Rathore, The Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.
Dr. T Shubhamangala, The Director, Medical And Health Services, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
4.
Mr. Jai Singh, The Registrar, Rajasthan Para Medical Council, G-1, Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Akshit Gupta for
Mr. Kamalesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG with
Ms. Eva Jhajharia
Mr. Abhishek Saini for
Mr. Bharat Saini
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
03/09/2026
1. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, learned Additional Advocate General, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. Mr. Abhishek Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Bharat Saini, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4.
3. Service is complete.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents are ad idem that the order dated
[2026:RJ-JP:35694] (2 of 2) [CCP-682/2026] 15.01.2026 has been reviewed in S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.120/2026 vide order dated 25.08.2026, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:- "8. Having considered the submissions, this review petition is disposed of with consent of learned counsels for the parties with modification in said order dated 15.01.2026 that a liberty is granted to applicant respondent No.3 to examine the case of present writ petitioner-non-applicants and in case of any veracity of facts and applicability about ratio as referred therein, the respondent No.3 may deviate and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days from date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Needless to say that if petitioners are aggrieved, they are at liberty to challenge the order.
10. Accordingly, review petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of."
5. In light of the above facts, once the order dated 15.01.2026 itself has been modified by the order dated 25.08.2026, nothing further survives in the present contempt petition and accordingly, the present contempt petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to avail remedies as available under the law, if at all, the petitioners are still aggrieved by the action/inaction of the respondents in pursuance to the order dated 25.08.2026. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J 32/DANISH USMANI