Priyanka Kumari Prajapat Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that defects pointed by the Registry have been cured. Looking to the nature of controversy raised and prayer addressed; the matter has been taken up for final disposal, at this stage.

¶12

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the Staterespondents are directed to consider and decide the representation within a time frame, which the petitioner is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶13

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents ventilating her grievances.

¶14

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law; preferably, within six weeks from

¶15

[CW-6681/2018]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶18

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stand disposed off.

¶19

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶20

M.Meena/3

Priyanka Kumari Prajapat v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Kumari Prajapat v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sarita Devi Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ajit Singh Vs State Education Departmentors

Devi Sahay Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Bharat Singh Gurjar Vs State Local Self Dept Anr.

Jogender Singh Vs State Education Department Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Jajariya Vs State Education Department Ors.