Priyanka Shrimali VS State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI, ARUN BHANSALI
Priyanka Shrimali – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
Members of the Bar: Mr. Vinay Jain, Dr. Nupur Bhati, Mr. Harish Purohit, Mr. M.S. Purohit, Mr. Rakesh Kalla, Mr. Manish Pitaliya, Mr. Subhankar Johari, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Mr. Vivek Mathur, Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary, Mr. Amit Kumar Purohit, Mr. D.D. Purohit, Mr. Narayan Yadav, Mr. Lalit Parihar, Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Mr. Jitendar Choudhary, Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav, Mr. V.D. Vaishnav, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Arpit Samariya, Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Mr. G.S. Rathore, Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Bharat Devasi, Ms. Paru Malik, Mr. Narendra Malik, Mr. Rishabh Purohit, Mr. Pawan Bharti, Mr. M.P. Singh, Mr. Arpit Gupta, Mr. K.D. Dayal, Ms. Adeeti, Ms. Kingal Purohit, Ms. Radhika Vyas, Mr. Manoj Purohit, Mr. RDSS Kharlia, Mr. Naman Bhansali, Mr. S.S. Choudhary, Mr. Vishal Singhal, Mr. K.S. Sisodia through V.C., Mr. Kshma Purohit through V.C., Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG with Mr. Saransh Vij, Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Mr. R.R. Ankiya, Mr. Avin Chhangani, Ms. Dimple Chhangani through V.C., Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania through V.C., Mr. Surya Kant through V.C., Mr. Sayar Gurjar, through V.C.

ORDER

Arun Bhansali, J.—The present reference has come-up before this Larger Bench on account of issue referred by the Division Bench on 12.01.2022, inter alia, observing and referring the question as under:—

“In our opinion, the view of the Rajasthan High Court requires consideration by a larger Bench. The reference is therefore made to three members Bench on the following:

“Whether the view taken by the three Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Smt. Sumer Kanwar (supra), Smt. Vandana Sharma (supra) and Kshama Devi (supra) upholding the vires of Rule 2(c) of the Rules, which excludes the married daughter from the definition of term ‘dependent’ is correct?”

2. After hearing the learned counsel appearing before this Bench, on 20.07.2022, the question referred was re-framed with the following observations:—

“After hearing the learned counsel appearing before us on previous dates and today, we are of the opinion that the question which has been referred to the Larger Bench requiring it to examine the correctness of the Division Bench judgments in the case of Smt. Sumer Kanwar, Smt. Vandana Sharma and Kshama Devi restricts the scope of consideration of the aspects which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI, ARUN BHANSALIPriyanka Shrimali – AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan – Respondent

Cases Referred (11)

SANDEEP MEHTA, VIJAY BISHNOI, ARUN BHANSALI
Priyanka Shrimali – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent