[2025:RJ-JP:18584] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5904/2025 Nabkri Developers Pvt Ltd, Having Its Registered Office At Ff-16 Cross River Mall Shahdra Delhi 110032 Through Its Director Mr. Anand Mittal R/o Krishna Kutir Amai Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Director, Directorate Of Enforcement (Ed), Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Enforcement (Ed), Government Of India, Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi - Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302005 (Raj.) 3. The Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement (Ed), Government Of India, Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi - Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur 302005 (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bharadwaj for Mr. Rajat Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/05/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner for issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be disposed of by issuing similar directions passed by this [2025:RJ-JP:18584] (2 of 2) [CW-5904/2025] Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3320/2025 vide order dated 09.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents admits the above factual aspect of the matter. 4. Considering the above statement made by learned counsels for the respective parties, the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3320/2025. 5. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 6. It goes without saying that this Court has not issued any direction to the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. For a period of further six weeks, the interim protection awarded to the petitioner, as per the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, shall continue. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/20