[2025:RJ-JP:18741] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18927/2024 Poonam Bheda W/o Yashwant, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sector 4, Manwa Khera (Rural) Udaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, (Department Of Mines And Geology) Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 3. Additional Director (Adm), Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 4. Additional Director (Mines) Vigilance, Directorate, Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 5. Additional Director (Hq), Department Of Mines And Geology, Udaipur. 6. Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur. 7. Dharam Singh Meena, The Then Mining Engineer, Department Of Mines And Geology, Jhunjhunu. 8. Shivang Pareek, Foremen Department Of Mines And Geology, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/05/2025 1. A limited prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible within the time frame. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of her grievance, the petitioner approached the respondent- authorities by way of filing representation, but inspite of passing [2025:RJ-JP:18741] (2 of 2) [CW-18927/2024] considerable time till date the representation has not been decided by the authorities concerned for the reasons best known to them, hence appropriate directions be issued. 3. Looking to the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena Versus State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 decided on 02.02.2024 has issued common directions to all the departments of the State to decide the representation of the aggrieved persons within the time frame and even circulars have also been issued by the Department of Administration directing all the concerned Departments to look into the matter and decide the representation expeditiously, but inspite of above no heed has been paid by the respondents. 4. In view of above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and a speaking order. 5. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction 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. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/334