HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3716/2025 Smt. Ruksana Begum W/o Sh. Mohammad Ramzan, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of House No. 999, Dudu House, Mohalla Bisayatiyan, Ghatgate, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director Of Local Bodies, Jaipur, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Jaipur Municipal Corporation Heritage, Through Its Commissioner, Old Police Commissioner Office, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur Municipal Corporation Heritage, Kishanpole Zone, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain for Mr. Ashvini Raj Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dikshant Jain for Ms. Prakash Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/05/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition as the legal notice dated 01.02.2025 sent by the petitioner to the respondents was not considered. 2. Learned counsel further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Meena Versus State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1665/2024 (2 of 2) [CW-3716/2025] decided on 02.02.2024) has directed all the Departments of the State to decide the representation within a stipulated time, but in-spite of passing of the said order, till date, the representation submitted by the petitioner has not been decided. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the representation (pending, if any) expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 5. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 6. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction/order to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondents would be at liberty to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/223