[2025:RJ-JD:857] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 365/2019 1. Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Radha Kishan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 2. Ravi S/o Shri Babu Lal,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 3. Vijay S/o Shri Prakash,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 4. Anil S/o Shri Ramesh,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 5. Pawan S/o Shri Radha Kishan,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 6. Dinesh S/o Shri Kalu Lal,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 7. Santosh S/o Shri Manju Lal,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 8. Rahul S/o Shri Babu Lal,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 9. Sukhdayal S/o Shri Mohan Lal,, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 10. Hansraj S/o Shri Babu Lal,, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 11. Kamlesh S/o Shri Kailash,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 12. Prithvi Raj S/o Late Shri Kishan Lal,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 13. Govind S/o Shri Raju Lal,, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 14. Satu Lal S/o Banshi Lal,, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. 15. Dashrath S/o Shri Prabhu Lal,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. [2025:RJ-JD:857] (2 of 3) [WCP-365/2019] 16. Santosh Bai W/o Shri Hari Ram,, Aged About 36 Years, R/ o Rawatbhata, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Self, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Shri Kailash Devel, Executive Officer Nagar Palika, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Nirban For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 07/01/2025 1. By way of the present contempt petition, petitioners have alleged non-compliance of the order dated 12.10.2018, which has been passed by this Court in petitioners’ writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.15405/2018. 2. Mr. Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in furtherance of the order passed by this Court on 12.10.2018, the petitioners’ made a representation dated 14.12.2018 and asked the respondents to consider the contention raised in the writ petition by enclosing the copies thereof, whereas nothing has been done so far. 3. Ms. Meenal Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent – State, invited Court’s attention towards the copies of the decision of the Committee which has been placed along with reply at page No.34 to 48 and highlighted that case of each of the petitioners has been dealt with by observing that their names were considered in the lottery, however, they could not succeed [2025:RJ-JD:857] (3 of 3) [WCP-365/2019] therein. She argued that the petitioners’ representation has been aptly decided and, therefore, no contempt can be said to have been committed by the respondents. 4. At this juncture, Mr. Nirban, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had raised various grievances about inclusion of ineligible candidates and also about the candidates who have more than two children, but no heed has been paid and the representation has been cursorily rejected. 5. On perusal of the representation which the petitioners have filed, this Court finds that the same does not contains even an iota of allegation - petitioners have simply enclosed copy of the writ petition. 6. According to this Court, expecting the respondents to go through each single line of the writ petition that too which was filed by as many as 16 petitioners, is too much. If the petitioners wanted to raise objection qua selection of any of the candidates, they should have specifically pleaded the same and only then, a case of wilful disobedience or contempt could have been made out. 7. That apart, the order was passed way back in the year, 2018 and much water has flown under the bridge. This Court, therefore, does not propose to continue with the present contempt proceedings. 8. Notices of contempt are hereby discharged. 9. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. (DINESH MEHTA),J 41-Arun/-