Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5704 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:5581]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18188/2024
1. Suresh Kumar S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 34 Years, 445,
Ajono Ki Dhani, Gundau, Jalore
2. Dilip Kumar S/o Chela Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Serna,
Jalore
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Home, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jalore
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10873/2023
1. Ram Lal S/o Kheraj Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Veerava, Tehsil Chitalwana, Jalore
2. Amad Khan S/o Hasam Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Navatala Rathoran, Dhanau, Barmer
3. Avas Khan S/o Hasan Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Arabi
Ki Gafan, Chohtan, Barmer
4. Sumit S/o Satyaveeer Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Bishanpura, Post Agwana Khurd, Tehsil Surajgarh,
Jhunjhunu
5. Mahendra Kumar Disaniya S/o Babu Lal Disaniya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Laxmipura, Rajpura (Nosal),
Dantaramgarh, Sikar
6. Arjun Kumar S/o Hataram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kotda,
Aakhrad, Jaswantpura, Jalore
7. Khetaram S/o Javaram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Serna,
Jaswantpura, Jalore
8. Prashant Parmar S/o Chhoga Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/
o Bichhawadi, Sanchore Jalore
9. Pahad Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Chandesara, Pachpadra, Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Department Of
Home, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jalore
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suraj Chouhan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order 29/01/2025
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners relies on
a judgment rendered in Omprakash & Ors. Vs. State of
[2025:RJ-JD:5581] (2 of 2) [CW-18188/2024]
Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.21214/2014, decided on
21.11.2017 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur and states
that instead of deciding the controversy afresh by this Court,
petitioners be permitted to file a fresh representation before the
competent authority and the competent authority be directed to
decided the same by passing appropriate order, in accordance with
law, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment.
2. Request seems to be fair.
3. Given the nature of order which is being passed, no prejudice
would be caused to the respondents and, therefore, the requirement
of issuance of notice is dispensed with as no return is required to be
filed by them.
4. In the aforesaid premise, without commenting on the merits of
the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with a liberty to the
petitioners to file a fresh representation, which shall be gone into by
the competent authority and appropriate administrative order shall
be passed in accordance with law.
5. Needless to say that the competent authority shall go through
the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners as
mentioned hereinabove and apply its independent mind on the
applicability of the same before passing any order.
6. Needful be done as expeditiously as possible.
7. It is made clear that the direction to consider the
representation shall not be construed as an expression of any
opinion, in any manner.
(ARUN MONGA),J 21-22-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!