[2025:RJ-JP:6312] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16487/2024 Mool Chand S/o Shri Dana Ram Saini, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kila Upar Pawta, Tehsil Pawta, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Urban Development And Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Director Of Local Bodies (DLB), Through Its Director, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme, New Civil Lines, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Nagar Palika Pawta Pragpura, Through Its Chairman/chief Executive Officer.district Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. 4. Krishna Kumar Jat S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, R/o Pawta, Tehsil Pawta, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. 5. Sumitra Devi W/o Shri Bheem Singh Jat, R/o Pawta, Tehsil Pawta, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. 6. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, R/o Bhagwatwala, Surajpura, Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. 7. Smt. Saroj Yadav W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav, R/o Surajpura, Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. ----Respondents/Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sehban Naqvi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 13/02/2025 This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Nagar Palika, Pawta Pragpura, District Kotputali Behror to decide the [2025:RJ-JP:6312] (2 of 4) [CW-16487/2024] application filed by the petitioner on 21.06.2024 for cancellation of Patta and vacation of the Government land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed the aforesaid application with the Nagar Palika, Pawta Pragpura under Section 73-B of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 read with other provisions for cancellation of Patta issued in favour of the respondents No.4 to 7 dehors the statutory provisions. He submits that despite lapse of more than seven months since the date of its submission, no action has been taken thereupon. He, therefore, prays that the respondents No.3 be directed to expedite its disposal. A coordinate Bench of this Court has, in the case of Pawan Meena versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.:2024 (4) WLC 486 (Raj.), held as under:- “Considering the arguments advanced above, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the State, by constitution as well as practice is a welfare-state. The State, whilst exercising governance over it’s citizens, is expected to protect and promote the citizen’s social and economic well-being, based on the ideals of equal and due opportunity and public responsibility for citizens who find it difficult and/or are unable to bare the necessities of life. With the aforementioned duty, comes the inherent task of being the ‘first-responders’ to the statements of grievance put forth by its citizens, albeit in the capacity of State employees or otherwise. At the same time, it is noted that the writ court, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, employs a discretionary approach, where in the presence of an alternate and efficacious remedy, the Courts often ponder in delegating the dispute to the said alternate authority, better equipped with experts or otherwise, to entertain the dispute. Resultantly, in service matters, the primary expert and/or the body possessing the complete acumen regarding the issue is the State itself, [2025:RJ-JP:6312] (3 of 4) [CW-16487/2024] being one of the parties to the litigation before the Court. Therefore, by assiduously addressing the grievance put forth by the aggrieved employees and acting as first responders, the State can very well do itself a favour and reduce the litigation before it substantially. It goes without saying that the State is patently/obviously not under the responsibility to address the representations positively in favour of the aggrieved-employees. Rather, the only requirement it ought to fulfill is that of providing an ear to their grievance, and thereafter pass appropriate speaking orders in compliance of the principles of natural justice, which may or may not address the aggrieved employee’s concerns to their liking. However, by said the careful consideration of the representations received by the State, even if a fraction of the grievance(s) are resolved, of which the cost is born by the State exchequer as well as the litigating employees, the litigation before the Courts wherein the State is a party shall reduce immensely. Even otherwise, the State must take- away/embody the spirit of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and make a genuine attempt to redress the employee’s grievances by way of speaking orders, passed in response to the representations so preferred by them. It also goes without saying that rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens, including the State employees, and maintain their confidence in the State. By merely adjudicating upon representations, the State shall not only lend itself a helping hand, but also extend the same courtesy to the litigants, Courts/Tribunals and also the State Exchequer, by way of reducing litigation costs. In this regard, Chief Secretary for the State is directed to issue instructions to the State instrumentalities to consider the representations of aggrieved parties and dispose of the same by way of speaking orders, so that frivolous/uncalled for litigation is cut-down before the already exceedingly over-burdened courts. Resultantly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent-State is [2025:RJ-JP:6312] (4 of 4) [CW-16487/2024] directed to pay due and timely heed to the representation preferred by the petitioner on 23.08.2023 and thereafter, pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days. It is expected that the principles of natural justice shall be adhered with. In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, this writ petition is disposed of in following term(s) without issuing notices to the respondents:- 1. The respondent No.3-Nagar Palika, Pawta Pragpura is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the application dated 21.06.2024 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/14