HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1418/2025 Rekha Gurjar W/o Shri Satish Kumar Gurjar, aged about 30 years R/o Village & Post Bucholai, Tehsil Talawada, District Sawai Madhopur ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur 3. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 12/01/2026 1. This is an appeal preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing as under: 3.Considering the above factual aspect of the matter where the impugned order has been passed by the respondent-Authorities without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it is evident that the same has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 4.Keeping in view the above factual aspect of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation against the order impugned within a period of seven days from today. In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, it is expected from the respondent-Authorities to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks thereafter. (2 of 3) [SAW-1418/2025] 5.With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 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 issued any direction/order to the respondent-Authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner in a particular way. The respondent- Authorities would be at liberty to decide the same, strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has a grievance that in other similar writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge, the Court had granted interim stay with regard to the recoveries while in the present case, the Court has disposed of the writ petition itself. He submits that similar orders ought to have been passed in similar cases by the learned Single Judge. He also relies on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mary Pushpam Vs. Telvi Curusumary & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.9941 of 2016) wherein, it was observed as under: 1. The rule of ‘Judicial Discipline and Propriety’ and the Doctrine of precedents has a merit of promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions providing assurance to individuals as to the consequences of their actions. The Constitution benches of this court have time and again reiterated the rules emerging from Judicial Discipline. Accordingly, when a decision of a coordinate Bench of same High court is brought to the notice of the bench, it is to be respected and is binding subject to right of the bench of such co-equal quorum to take a different view and refer the question to a larger bench. It is the only course of action open to a bench of co-equal strength, when faced with the previous decision taken by a bench with same strength. 3. He has also relied on an interim order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Division Bench in the case of Shankar Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.873/2025). He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has passed interim orders in other cases. In the present case too, the learned Single Judge should have granted an interim stay. (3 of 3) [SAW-1418/2025] 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and also noticed the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as interlocutory orders passed by the Division Bench. We notice that, on fact, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to pass a final judgment and while in other cases, there was an interim order. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that if interim orders are to be passed, they should be of the same nature. However, the same does not preclude the learned Single Judge to decide the case finally, if he so chooses even though he may have passed interim orders in other cases. 5. In the present case, we also notice that no one appeared before the Writ Court to inform about any such similar case pending. In spite thereto, the learned Single Judge while deciding the present petition has made observations relating to the recovery being wrongfully made and has virtually set aside the recovery order with directions to decide afresh by deciding the representation. 6. In our opinion, nothing further is required to be done. Even in the other cases, in our opinion, wherever there is a recovery, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the order has to be set aside and the concerned authority would be directed to decide the representation on merits by giving opportunity of hearing. 7. As we have noted the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we confirm the same. The appeal is wholly misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RAHUL MIRKHANI/24