[2025:RJ-JP:39385] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12303/2025 Rajendra Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Vijay Singh, aged about 34 Years, R/o- C-4, Panchavati Nagar, Subhash Nagar, Kunhadi, District- Kota, Rajasthan. At present posted as Constable Driver No.- 530, Reserve Police Line, District- Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Police Head Quarter, (PHQ), Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.), Kota Range, Kota , Rajasthan. 5. The Superintendent of Police (S.P.), District- Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navdeep Singh for Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by an order dated 17.12.2012, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11973/2012: Dara Singh Vs. State & Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:39385] (2 of 2) [CW-12303/2025] 2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the respondent No.3-The Director General of Police (D.G.P.), Police Head Quarter, (PHQ), Lal Kothi, Jaipur for redressal of his grievances. 3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation within a period of four (4) weeks from today in the office of respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 is directed to decide the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation; and if the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of the law laid down in the case of Dara Singh (supra); the same shall be decided in terms of the said judgment. 4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondent No.3 would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition, and only if the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief sought. 5. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners’ grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 6. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /68