ASHOK KUMAR BUTOLIA SON OF SHRI SHRI KRISHAN BUTOLIYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CW/6999/2025 · 2025-09-26
Maneesh Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41912 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41912 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:39702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6999/2025 Ashok Kumar Butolia S/o Shri Shri Krishan Butoliya, aged about 55 Years, R/o 4/720, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, State of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/09/2025
1. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised various issues. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submitted that he would be satisfied if: the petitioner is permitted to file representation before the respondent No.1-State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur encapsulating the grievance(s) raised in the present writ petition; and if a direction may be issued to respondent No.1 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 petitioner to file a representation before respondent No.1 within a period of four (4) weeks from today. The
[2025:RJ-JP:39702] (2 of 2) [CW-6999/2025] respondent No.1 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 petitioner's 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 petitioner 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-6