[2026:RJ-JP:6755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 226/2026 1. Mohd. Juned Tagala S/o Mohd. Aslam Tagala, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 35, Mohalla Teliyan, Fatehpur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). (Duly Elected Parshad/councillor Of Ward No. 35) 2. Ismail Khan S/o Yunus Khan, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward Number 26, Near Indian School, Near Mughlo Ki Masjid, Fatehpur Shekhwati, District Sikar (Rajasthan). (Duly Elected Parshad/councillor Of Ward No. 38) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Local Bodies (Dlb), G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The District Collector, Collectorate, Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 3. The Municipal Commissioner (Aayukt), Nagar Parishad, Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. The Chairman (Sabhapati), Nagar Parishad, Fatehpur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Farooq Ahmed For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 12/02/2026 The present writ petition is as misconceived as it could be as neither the petitioners have any locus-standi to file the present writ petition so as to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court nor there is any injury, which has been suffered by the [2026:RJ-JP:6755] (2 of 2) [CW-226/2026] petitioners on account of which, a challenge to the tender dated 18.08.2025, issued by respondents No.3 and 4 could have been made. The argument that the issuance of the said tender is causing a hindrance in the duty of the petitioners, who are elected Parshads is actually preposterous as issuance of a tender by the State by no stretch of imagination can be considered as causing any hindrance in the duty of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, once the petitioners have been elected as a Parshads, they are obliged to ensure that development work takes place seamlessly. Further, the facts as narrated in the petition fail to make out any case for granting any indulgence whatsoever. For the above reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /29