Mamta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5281 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017336]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10388/2018

1. Mamta Devi W/o Shri Rajkumar, Aged About 34 Years, Maharshi Naval Colony, Regar Mohalla, Ward No. 7, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

2. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra Harijan, Aged About 22 Years, Maharshi Naval Colony, Ward No. 7, Rajnagar, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

3. Vijesh S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Harijan, Aged About 32 Years, Maharshi Naval Colony, Regar Mohalla, Ward No. 7, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

4. Chandan Lal S/o Shri Shyam Lal Harijan, Aged About 32 Years, Outside Chandpol Darwaja, Harijan Basti, Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

5. Ram Chandra S/o Shri Veni Ram Harijan (Bhangi), Aged About 38 Years, Outside Chandpol, Kankroli, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

6. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Devi Lal Harijan (Bhangi), Aged About 39 Years, Indira Colony, Kishore Nagar, Rajsamand, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Raj Mehta for Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/05/2023

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/RJJD/017336] (2 of 2) [CW-10388/2018]

rendered in D.B. Special Appeal No.1733/2018 : Virendra Kumar

& Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

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 The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.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 523-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)