Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Ct/cd Siddant Sindhu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2140 of 2023
Decided On : 17-02-2023
Certiorari - Premature Petition - The court directed the respondents to send the appeal of the petitioner to the Competent Authority and instructed the Authority to decide the same within four weeks. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pending the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order and prevent any further adverse action by the respondents. The respondents had taken decisions against the petitioner, including returning the appeal and issuing a show-cause notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decisions taken by the respondents were not proper and not as per law, as it was the duty of the respondents to send the appeal to the Competent Authority. The court directed the respondents to send the appeal to the Competent Authority and instructed the Authority to decide the same within four weeks. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pending the appeal.
Issues: Premature petition, duty of respondents to send appeal to Competent Authority
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the respondents to send the appeal to the Competent Authority and the improper nature of the decisions taken by the respondents influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to send the appeal of the petitioner to the Competent Authority and instructing the Authority to decide the same within four weeks. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pending the appeal.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"(a) To pass a writ of certiorari to set aside order no. CISF/DMRC/VIOLET-II/DSIC/UR-37/S.S/2022-2235 dated 23.07.2022.
(b) To pass a writ of Mandamus Or any Appropriate Writ, Order of Direction Directing Respondents No To Take Any Further Adverse Action Against The Petitioner."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance notice informs this Court that against the impugned Order dated 23.07.2022, the petitioner has filed appeal in September, 2022, however, the said appeal is pending consideration, thus the present petition is premature.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the filing of the appeal by the petitioner, however, she submits that the said appeal has been returned vide Order dated 21.11.2022. A Show-cause Notice dated 15.12.2022 has been issued against the petitioner.
4. The decisions so taken vide Order dated 21.11.2022 and thereafter, vide Order dated 15.12.2022, in our considered opinion, are not proper and not as per law on the ground that if the petitioner had made an Appeal which was not before the Competent Authority, it was the duty of the respondents to send the said appeal to the Competent Authority.
5. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to send the appeal of the petitioner to the Competent Authority and the said Authority shall decide the same within four weeks from today. Decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing within one thereafter.
6. It is made clear that pursuant to the appeal filed by the petitioner, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
Duty of respondents to send appeal to Competent Authority and the improper nature of the decisions taken by the respondents
The High Court may issue a direction to a statutory authority to consider a pending representation and grant an interim stay on coercive action to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice....
The petition became moot after the petitioners received the order copy they initially claimed not to have received.
The necessity of providing a hearing before executing actions that affect a party's rights is essential in law.
Settlement of a criminal matter can allow for the quashing of proceedings against the petitioner.
The judgment establishes that there is no provision for filing an appeal/application against the order of revision, and the petitioner can challenge the final order by way of revision before the conc....
The court affirms the necessity for timely administrative action upon petitioner's request, prioritizing justice and fairness in municipal matters.
Timely decision on appeal and communication of reasoned order.
The court's decision was centered around the principles of providing access to the order and ensuring fairness in the revisional trial process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
