[2025:RJ-JP:32952] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12486/2025 1. Pushpendra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad Vaishanv, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sitaramji Mandir Ki Gali, Pipalwara, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 2. Kayyoom Khan S/o Shri Jumma Khan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dak Ghar Ke Paas, Lakhanpur, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 3. Sudhakar Sharma S/o Shri Sarvesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Dharanwas, Jaun, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Chief Electoral Officer, State Election Commission, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District Election Officer (Collector), Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 3. District Election Officer (Collector), Dausa (Raj.) 4. Electoral Registration Officer, Sub Divisional Officer, Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 5. Electoral Registration Officer, Sub Divisional Officer, Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.) 6. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 7. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) 8. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bajrang Sepat for Mr. Komal Kumari Giri For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by an order dated 22.07.2025, passed by a Single Bench of this Court at the principal seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12975/2025: Ten Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2025:RJ-JP:32952] (2 of 2) [CW-12486/2025] 2. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation before the competent authorities 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 in the office of respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 is directed to decide the same within a period of six (6) 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 Ten 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 respondents 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. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV-16