Anitaa vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5103 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016729]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11156/2018

1. Anitaa W/o Shri Vijay, Aged About 30 Years, Mukharjee Chouraha, PWD Road, Harijan Basti, Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

2. Babli W/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 43 Years, Outside Chandpol, Kankroli, District Rajsamand, (Raj.).

3. Durga Shankar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Regar Mohalla, Rajnagar, District Rajsamand (Raj.) And

4. Govind S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 20 Years, Regar Mohalla, Rajnagar, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.). and

2. The Municipal Council, Rajsamand Through The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot For Respondent(s) : None present

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

23/05/2023

1. Mr. Gahlot, 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 rendered in D.B. Special Appeal

No.1733/2018 : Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr.

[2023/RJJD/016729] (2 of 2) [CW-11156/2018]

2. Permission granted.

3. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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 stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 278-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)