Rajasthan High Court
CW/12423/2026 of SATISH KUMAR URF SEDURAM S/O SHRI PRABHUDAYAL ADOPTED SON SAMARATH LAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 31 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12423/2026 CNR: RJHC020256072026 | URN: CW / 1472U / 2026 Satish Kumar Urf Seduram S/o Shri Prabhudayal Adopted Son Samarath Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Indpura, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (At
[2026:RJ-JP:34868]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12423/2026
CNR: RJHC020256072026 | URN: CW / 1472U / 2026
Satish Kumar Urf Seduram S/o Shri Prabhudayal Adopted Son Samarath Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Indpura, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar) Through His Cousin Brother Namely Kuldeep S/o Shri Rajendra, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bhora Kalan, Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon (Hr.)122413.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committtee, Through Its Director, Jaipur.
Director General Of Prisons, Directorate Prisons Rajasthan, Ghatgate, Jaipur.
Superintendent Central Jail, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Vishram Prajapati
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
31/08/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions from his client, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.2-Prisoners Open Air Camp Advisory Committee, narrating his grievances as encapsulated in the present writ petition. He further prays that a direction be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the said representation in a time-bound manner.
2. Learned Additional Government Advocate does not oppose the aforesaid limited prayer sought for by the petitioner.
3. Heard.
4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh
[2026:RJ-JP:34868] (2 of 2) [CW-12423/2026] representation before respondent No.2 within a period of fifteen
(15) days from today. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the said representation within a period of two months from the date of filing of such representation by a speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law.
5. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction to decide such representation has been issued only with a view to ensure an expeditious redressal of the petitioner's grievance. The same shall not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner.
6. Furthermore, it is needless to say that after adjudication of the representation, if any cause of action still survives, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail further remedies available under the law.
7. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Deepa-25