Omprakash vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8880 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4043/2021

1. Omprakash S/o Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Village Balwa, District Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Hari Ram S/o Khiya Ram, Aged About 64 Years, B/c Sargara, R/o Rathodi Kua, District Nagaur (Raj.).

3. Ramakanvari W/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Meghwal, R/o Bhanbiyo Ka Bass, Tarnau, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.).

4. Mansukh S/o Kishana Ram, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Raigar, R/o Regaro Ka Bas, Gorau, Nimbijodhan, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, Department Of Social Justice Empowerment, Government Of Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. A.D. Ujjwal
For Respondent(s)          :



                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

06/04/2021
1.   Learned     counsel       for   the   petitioners          submits   that   the

controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely

covered by the judgment of this Court in bunch of writ petition led

by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013; Anokh Bai Vs. State

of Raj. & Ors.

(2 of 2) [CW-4043/2021]

2. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed

of with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation within

two weeks along with certified copy of the order instant and a

copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra).

3. On receipt of representation along with the certified copy of

the order instant, respondents shall decide the same within a

period of eight weeks, in accordance with law including the law

laid down in Anokh Bai's case.

4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioners' grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

36-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)