Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6003 (RAJ)

NEETU DEVI WIFE OF SHRI RAHUL KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/5597/2026 · 2026-03-27

Anand Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:12857] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5597/2026 Neetu Devi Wife Of Shri Rahul Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Sanjay Colony, Bada Mohalla, Ganapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Local Self Bodies, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Through Its Secretary. 2. Dy. Secretary (Administration), Department Of Local Self Bodies,, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Dy. Director (Administration), Department Of Local Self Bodies, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Gangapurcity, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hira Lal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the above writ petition is covered by the judgment delivered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10496/2018 (Ravi Jajot & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit a representation in the light of above [2026:RJ-JP:12857] (2 of 2) [CW-5597/2026] judgment before the respondent No.4, who may consider and pass appropriate order on his representation. 3. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.4, who shall consider and pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of representation along with a certified copy of this order. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J RACHNA /35