[2026:RJ-JP:10] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 75/2024 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4180/2023 Raj Kumar S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village And Post Bigodana, Tehsil Surajgarh, Panchayat Samiti Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Presently Elected Member Of Panchayat Samiti Pilani District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj), Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Dy. Commissioner And Secretary (Ii), Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. District Collector, Jhunjhunu. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu. 5. Sub-Divisional Officer And Sub Divisional Magistrate, Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu. 6. Smt. Birma, Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Pilani, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Naresh Kumar Sharma for Respondent No.6 JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/01/2026 1. The instant review petition has been filed for recalling of the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4180/2023. [2026:RJ-JP:10] (2 of 2) [WRW-75/2024] 2. The main prayer in the writ petition was for delegating the financial powers of the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti Pilani, District Jhunjhunu to Government Official till the elections for the post of Pradhan are conducted. 3. Mr.Naresh Kumar Sharma, Adv. has put appearance on behalf of the respondent No.6 and submits that during pendency of this review petition, an order has been passed and the Sub- Divisional Officer has been appointed as Administrator to conduct the functions of Pradhan. Counsel further submits that even the elections for the post of Pradhan have also been declared and the elections are expected to be conducted in the month of March or April, 2026. Hence, under the changed circumstances, no cause of action survives with the petitioner to continue with the instant petition, hence, the same has become infructuous. 4. Considering the above submissions made by counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6, the instant review petition is rendered as infructuous. The instant review petition stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an appropriate application for recalling of this order, in case, any cause of action/ grievances still survives. 6. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /28