[2025:RJ-JP:3926] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6994/2010 Hari Shankar Bairwa, age 58 years, S/O Narayan Lal Bairwa, R/O Plot No. A-82, Vijay Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Information & Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Information & Public Relation Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S. L. Songara For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ashish Gauring on behalf of Ms.Minakshi Jain, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made by the counsel for the petitioner to disposed of the instant petition by issuing direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 22.04.2009 submitted by the petitioner, for redressal of his grievance. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9661/2002 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2007. Counsel submits that liberty way granted to the petitioner to submit a representation before the concerning authorities and in pursuance thereof, the representation was submitted thereafter, but till date, the same has not been decided by the respondents by passing a reasoned [2025:RJ-JP:3926] (2 of 3) [CW-6994/2010] and cogent order, for the reasons best known to them, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to decide the representation within the stipulated time. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that when the earlier writ petition was submitted by the petitioner was decided by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2007, the liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation to the concerning authorities, in case the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against his conviction is allowed or the petitioner is acquitted from the charges. Counsel submits that the revision petition submitted by the petitioner was not allowed while the judgment of conviction was upheld and instead of sentencing him, he was granted benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the representation submitted by the petitioner was not decided. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides, this Court is of the consistent view that the respondents cannot be allowed to sit over the matter, once the revision petition submitted by the petitioner has been decided by this Court and it is expected from the State-respondent to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner by-passing a reasoned and speaking orders. 6. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing direction to the respondents to decide the [2025:RJ-JP:3926] (3 of 3) [CW-6994/2010] representation filed by the petitioner (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible not beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that no direction has been issued by this Court to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular manner. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /67