[2026:RJ-JP:32976] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/2026 CNR: RJHC020145282026 | URN: CCP / 379U / 2026 Krishna Khinchi D/o Shri Puran Mal Rajora W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Khinchi, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of House No. 390, Char Darwaja Bahar, Mandi Khatikan, Kuhurre Ke Upar, Near Molana Sahab Ki Dargah, Jaipur District Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Vasudev Malawat, Director Integrated Child Development Services, Rajasthan, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Alka Vishnoi, Additional Director (Administration) Integrated Child Development Scheme, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Alok Raj, Rajasthan Employees Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Praband Sansthan, Parisar, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Secretary. 4. Ms. Priyanka Meena, Child Development Project (Officer, Kotputli (Kotputli-Behror). 5. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director Integrated Child Development Services, Rajasthan, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Aswal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 18/08/2026 This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of order dated 17.11.2025 passed in SB CWP No. 15311/2025. [2026:RJ-JP:32976] (2 of 2) [CCP-357/2026] By the order dated 17.11.2025, the petitioner was allowed liberty to make a representation to the respondent authorities and the respondent were directed to consider and decide the representation. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manoj Sharma states that the representation of the petitioner has been decided by a reasoned and speaking order dated 17.08.2026 after making due inquiry. He has also place before this Court the copy of order dated 17.08.2026 which is taken on record. In view of the fact that representation of the petitioner has been decided, no further cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue this contempt petition. Accordingly this contempt petition is disposed of. Contempt notices are discharged. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to him under law to challenge the order dated 17.08.2026, if she feels aggrieved by the same. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava/124