[2025:RJ-JP:39092] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13803/2025 Seema Meena Daughter Of Shri Pukhraj Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Shiv Colony Nearby Railway Line, Hindaun City, Karauli (Banswara), Presently Posted At Tehsil Office Hindaun, District Karauli. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Addl. Registrar (Administration), Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. 2. District Collector, Karauli. 3. District Collector, Banswara. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari, Mr. Jai Prakash Saini For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 23/09/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 has been issued by respondent No.1 – The State of Rajasthan, through the Additional Registrar (Administration), Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, while grossly misinterpreting the order passed by a Single Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of Deepika Katara vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submitted that she would be satisfied if: the petitioner is permitted to file a representation before the respondent No.1- The State Of Rajasthan, through Additional 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15491/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:39092] (2 of 2) [CW-13803/2025] Registrar (Administration), Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and, if a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 to decide the same in a time-bound manner, sympathetically and in light of the guidelines issued in Deepika Katara vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.1 within a period of two (02) weeks from today. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of filing of such representation by a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. 5. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide such representation has been issued only with a view to ensure an expeditious redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 6. Furthermore, it is needless to say that after adjudication of the representation, if any cause of action still survives, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies available under the law. 7. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/8