[2025:RJ-JP:39035] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9950/2025 1. Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Ram Bharosi, aged about 35 Years, R/o Gram Village Moodik, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. 2. Saudan Singh S/o Shri Hakem Singh, aged about 49 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Jarga, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. 3. Manoj Kumar S/o Nirmal Singh, aged about 43 Years, R/o House No. 301, Gram Panchayat Bagthar, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. 4. Lal Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh, aged about 53 Years, R/o Gram Panchayat Bharli, Panchayat Saimiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Addl. Chief Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur. 3. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, District Dholpur. (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 23/09/2025 1. In the writ petition, the petitioners have raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instructions from his clients, submitted that they would be satisfied if: the petitioners are permitted to file a representation [2025:RJ-JP:39035] (2 of 2) [CW-9950/2025] before the respondent No.3-The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Basedi, Dholpur encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction may be issued to respondent No.3 to decide the same in a time bound manner. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar. 3. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before respondent No.3 within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The respondent No.3 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of filing of such representation by a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. 4. 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 petitioners' grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 5. Furthermore, it is needless to say that after adjudication of the representation, if any cause of action still survives, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail further remedies available under the law. 6. Other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-4