[2025:RJ-JP:4391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2025 Sitaram Kalyaniyan S/o Shankar Lal Kalyaniyan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village And Post Guhala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Jaipur. 3. The Assistant Director, Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Choudhary for Mr. Hanuman Choudhary For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 31/01/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in bunch of writ petition led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013; Anokh Bai Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation within two weeks along with certified copy of the instant order and a copy of the judgment in the case of Anokh Bai (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:4391] (2 of 2) [CW-1629/2025] 3. On receipt of representation along with the certified copy of the instant order, respondents shall decide the same expeditiously as early as possible, in accordance with law including the law laid down in Anokh Bai’s case, if applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner. 5. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. 6. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner would be entitled to the relief. 7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that no order or direction has been issued by this Court to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way, they would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/41