[2025:RJ-JP:39736] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14887/2025 Manoj Kumar Jha S/o Shri Prem Kumar Jha, aged about 46 Years, R/o Kharaja Road, Sayad Ke Samane Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchaytati Raj Department, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 2. The Secretary to the Government and Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Raj. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/09/2025 1. Though various prayers have been made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if; he is permitted to file a representation before respondent No.3- Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur, Rajasthan, encapsulating the grievances raised in the present writ petition within a period of four (04) weeks from today; and if a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to decide the same in a time-bound manner in light of the judgment passed by a Single Bench of this Court at [2025:RJ-JP:39736] (2 of 2) [CW-14887/2025] Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ petitions led by Vikram Singh Rao Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.1. 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.3 within a period of four (04) weeks from today. Respondent No.3 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of filing of such representation in light of the judgment passed in Vikram Singh Rao (supra), by passing a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. 4. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of the petitioner's grievance. The same shall not be construed as an order to decide the representation in any 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. The stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-26 1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17204/2019, decided on 06.02.2020