Motilal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12091 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9422/2021

Motilal Meena S/o Somaji Meena, Aged About 47 Years, Village Bichivada Post Chaurai Tehsil Khervada District Udaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.

3. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sayra Tehsil Gogunda District- Udaipur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pradeep Mathur, through Cisco
                                   Webex
For Respondent(s)            :



                        JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Judgment

03/08/2021

(1)     Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition

has been set at rest in petitioner's favour by judgment dated

31.7.2013 passed by this Court in the case of Chandra Bhan Vs.

State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.13003/2012) and connected writ

petitions, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this

Court vide order dated 10.11.2014 passed in DBSAW

No.1298/2014 (State of Rajathan Vs. Thakar Ram) and connected

special appeals.

(2 of 2) [CW-9422/2021]

(2) Mr. Mathur submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if

the respondents are directed to decide petitioner's representation

(which he would be filing within a period of three weeks from

today) in accordance with the enunciation made by this Court in

the above referred judgments.

(3) In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of

with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation within a

period of three weeks alongwith certified copy of the order instant

and photostat copies of the judgments aforesaid and any other

judgment which the petitioner wishes to rely.

(4) In case, the representation so addressed, the competent

authority of the respondents shall do the needful in accordance

with law including the judgments aforesaid.

(5) It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

petitioner's representation has been issued only with a view to

ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same

may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation

in a particular manner.

(6) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

121-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)