Poonam Devi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6191 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26600] (1 of 2) [CW-10646/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10646/2023

1. Poonam Devi W/o Shri Gopal Harijan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8, Harijano Ka Mohalla, Dulchasar, Bikaner.

2. Aarti Harijan W/o Raja Ram Harijajn, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 37, New Harijan Basti, Sujangarh, District Churu.

3. Vikram Saraswat S/o Sundar Mal Saraswat, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Harijan Basti Gogamedi Ke Pass Ward No. 34, Sujangarh, District Churu.

4. Ganga Dhar Lakhan S/o Nanu Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Harijan Basti Ward No. 34, Sujangarh, District Churu.

5. Aarti W/o Buta Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 36 Balmiki Basti Sujangarh District Churu.

6. Vinod Sarsota S/o Sundarmal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Harijan Basti Sujangarh, District Churu.

7. Deepak Chawariya S/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Rampuriya Ice Factory, Vinobha Basti, Bikaner.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sujangarh, District Churu.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat &
                                Mr. Anurudh Kothari
For Respondent(s)          :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

22/08/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to

withdraw the present petition in light of the directions given by the

Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 09.08.2019

[2023:RJ-JD:26600] (2 of 2) [CW-10646/2023]

rendered in DB Special Appeal No.1733/2018 : Virendra

Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

2. Permission granted.

3. The present petition is permitted to be withdrawn.

4. The petitioners would be free to file a representation before

the respondents within a period of two weeks from today.

5. In case, the representation is so addressed along with a

certified copy of the order instant, the respondents shall consider

petitioners' grievance in accordance with law including the

judgment passed by Division Bench in the case of Virendra Kumar

(supra).

6. 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.

7. The writ petition so also stay application stand dismissed

accordingly.

8. The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 66-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)