Vikram Teji vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8204 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33573] (1 of 2) [CW-15536/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15536/2023

Vikram Teji S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Badi Guwad MR Hotel Ke Piche, District Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Raj Paliwal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/10/2023

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 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 The present petition is permitted to be withdrawn.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 petitioner 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

petitioner's grievance in accordance with law including the

[2023:RJ-JD:33573] (2 of 2) [CW-15536/2023]

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 petitioner's 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 petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

91-Anil Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)