[2025:RJ-JP:51530] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1388/2025 1. Jitendra Gupta S/o Chandram Gupta, Aged About 46 Years, R/o J.d.e. Colony, Govindpura, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Ram Bhajan Meena S/o Shri Hajari Lal Meena, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 13, Jagganath Puri, Triveni Nagar-I, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Shailendra Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Rajawat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kherla Khurd, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 4. Vishnu Banjara S/o Shri Charan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 25524, Methi Kothi, Banjara Basti, Darjiyon Ka Rasta, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Amar Chand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 10, Friends Colony, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Amar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Chanwar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 18/g/19 Saraswati Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development And Housing, Government Of Rajasthan, Food Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur- 302005. 2. Smt. Anandhi, The Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302004. 3. Dr. Nishant Jain, The Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Ram Kishor Vyas Bhawan, Indra Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302004. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Jain For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:51530] (2 of 3) [CCP-1388/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 19/12/2025 1. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners alleging non-compliance of the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15904/2024 titled as Jitendra Gupta and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:- “3. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioners are given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents-Authority within a period of 15 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to consider and decide the representation on basis of legal position, referred by the petitioners but with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation. After passing the order, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the order to the petitioners either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioners have provided E-mail in their representation. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, they are at liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 4. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in compliance of the said order, the representation filed by the petitioners has been decided by the respondents vide a speaking order dated 21.11.2025, however, the same has been passed in a mechanical manner and the grievance as raised by the petitioner has not been considered. Learned counsel further submits that even the name of the petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the said speaking order, which itself reflects that the order has [2025:RJ-JP:51530] (3 of 3) [CCP-1388/2025] been passed without due application of mind. Thus, learned counsel submits that the respondents have committed contempt by not complying with the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 08.10.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 4. The jurisdiction of contempt proceedings can be invoked only when a case of willful disobedience by the respondents is made out. In the present case, this Court vide order dated 08.10.2025 directed the respondents to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners, which stands complied with by passing of the order dated 21.11.2025. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 08.10.2025. 5. Thus, no case for contempt being committed by the respondents is made out. However, in case the petitioner is still aggrieved by passing of the order dated 21.11.2025, it would be open for him to seek appropriate legal remedy for redressal of his grievance. 6. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /21