[2025:RJ-JP:22343] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8427/2025 Rajkumari Sharma W/o. Shri Murarilal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Bayana Mod, Krushna Colony, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli. (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Local Self Government, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Local Self Government, Civil Lines Railway Phatak, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner, Hindaun Municiplaity, Distt. Karauli 4. Director General, Anticorruption Bureau, (Acb), State Of Rajasthan, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal with Mr. Vijay Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before approaching this Court, the petitioner approached the respondents by way of filing a representation for redressal of his grievances, but for the reasons best known to the authority, the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024) has directed all the Departments of [2025:RJ-JP:22343] (2 of 2) [CW-8427/2025] the State to decide the representation within a stipulated time, but in spite of passing of the said order, till date, the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /104