Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 740 (RAJ)

BANSHIDHAR GURJAR SON OF SHRI MANGI LAL GURJAR v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/3435/2026 · 2026-02-24

Anuroop Singhi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:8433] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3435/2026 Banshidhar Gurjar Son Of Shri Mangi Lal Gurjar, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Deeppura, Todi Mod, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Mines, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Mines (Safety), Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Police Commissioner, Police Headquarters, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 4. The Mining Engineer, Mines Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 5. The District Collector, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitesh Kumawat for Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 24/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, confines his prayer to the limited extent to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the representation submitted by him with respect to illegal mining being carried out in the mountain range falling in the Village Deeppura, Todi Mod, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan within a time bound manner. 2. Considering the limited submission so made, the writ petition stands disposed of while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a [2026:RJ-JP:8433] (2 of 2) [CW-3435/2026] representation before the respondent No.2 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. 3. In the event of any such representation being filed, the respondent No.2 is expected to decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days thereafter. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 6. Needless to say, this order has been passed only to decide the petitioner’s representation and in no manner is to be construed as a direction to decide the said representation in a particular manner. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J VINAY /7