HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6276/2025 1. Rampal S/o Late Shri Kalyan, R/o Goner, Tehsil San- ganer, District Jaipur. 2. Chhutanlal Sain S/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 3. Lalchand Sain S/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. Ramratan Sain S/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 5. Manoj Sain S/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 6. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 7. Smt. Geeta D/o Late Shri Hanuman, R/o Village Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 8. Smt. Madhu D/o Late Shri Hanuman W/o Shri Chouthmal Sain, R/o Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, Dis- trict Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gopal S/o Late Shri Ramnath, R/o Goner, Tehsil San- ganer, District Jaipur. 2. Shankar S/o Late Shri Ramnath, R/o Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 3. Sitaram S/o Late Shri Ramnath, R/o Goner, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. 4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order (2 of 3) [CW-6276/2025] 28/04/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ‘the Board’), by which an interim order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo and the case was posted on 30.04.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing the aforesaid interim order, no reasons have been as- signed and simply status quo order has been passed and the case has been deferred for another day. Counsel submits that at the time of passing of interim order, the Court is supposed to pass reasoned and speaking order, so in the interest of both parties, appropriate directions be issued to the Board to decide the stay application filed by the respondents along with their appeal by passing a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the arguments of both sides. In support of his con- tentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commis- sioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla & Brothers reported in 2010 (4) SCC 785. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed after hearing both sides, hence, under these circumstances, inter- ference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 3) [CW-6276/2025] 5. This Court is not going into the controversy pending be- fore the Board, but looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners, the instant writ petition stands dis- posed of by issuing directions to the Board to decide the stay application expeditiously, preferably on the next date after hearing the arguments of both sides by passing a reasoned speaking order. 6. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/15