Jyoti Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37343)
2024 Latest Caselaw 7869 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jyoti Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:37343) on 9 September, 2024

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2024:RJ-JD:37343]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14741/2024

1.       Jyoti Devi W/o Sanjay Dharu, Aged About 33 Years,
         Resident Of Harijan Basti Sujangarh Ward No. 34,
         Sujangarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).
2.       Ratumbhara Sangala D/o Tarachand Sangala, Aged About
         30 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 23, Harijan Basti Near
         Baba Ram Dev Temple, Ladnun, Bankliya District Nagaur
         (Rajasthan).
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
         Of Local Self Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Sujangarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. C.V.S. Shekhawat.



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

09/09/2024

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

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 The present petition is permitted to be withdrawn.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

[2024:RJ-JD:37343] (2 of 2) [CW-14741/2024]

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 80-Shahenshah/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)