Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15691 (RAJ)

AJAY KUMAR SON OF KAMAL CHAND v. COMMISSIONER, NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR

CW/2024/2026 · 2026-02-09

Anuroop Singhi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:5911] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2024/2026 Ajay Kumar Son Of Kamal Chand, R/o Babu Ka Tiba, Chainpura Basti, Chokadi Topkhana Huzuri, Ramganj, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Its Commissioner Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur 2. Deputy Commissioner Nagar Nigam, Zone Adrash Nagar, Sector 4, Jawhar Nagar, Jaipur 3. Meera Devi W/o Shri Ram Kishore Sarasar, R/o 25/246, Babu Ka Tiba, Ambedkar Puri, Chainpura Basti, Chokadi Topkhana Huzuri, Ramganj, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Chand Choudhary For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 09/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has confined his submissions to the extent of issuance of a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 09.06.2025 expeditiously, in accordance with law. Taking note of the above, it is directed that respondent No.2 shall decide the representation dated 09.06.2025 strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a [2026:RJ-JP:5911] (2 of 2) [CW-2024/2026] period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Needless to say, that this order has been passed only in the context of deciding the petitioner’s representation and in no manner is to be construed as directing the representation to be decided in a particular manner. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /9