Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Sunil Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Secretay Mha – Respondent
W.P.(C) 2333 of 2023
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 - Time-bound adjudication of statutory petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions for the adjudication of a post-confirmation statutory petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 r/w Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 within a time-bound manner.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to adjudicate the petition within four weeks and communicate the decision with a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
Issues: Adjudication of post-confirmation statutory petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 r/w Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 within a time-bound manner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely adjudication of statutory petitions and directed the respondents to adhere to the specified timeline.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition and allowed the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the decision of the respondents.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to adjudicate the post confirmation statutory petition dated 20.11.2022 preferred by him under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 r/w Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 in a time bound manner.
2. Notice issued.
3. Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents accepts notice and has assured this Court that the petition mentioned above shall be adjudicated within four weeks.
4. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to adjudicate the post confirmation statutory petition dated 20.11.2022 preferred by the petitioner under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 r/w Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within one week thereafter with reasoned order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
6. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on his aforementioned petition, he may approach the appropriate forum.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 is essential, and the court has the authority to direct the respondents to adhere to a specified timeline.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of statutory petitions and the provision of relevant documents to ensure procedural fairness in administrative processes.
The court directed timely adjudication of a statutory petition under the Border Security Force Act, ensuring procedural compliance without addressing the merits.
The court can issue a writ of mandamus to direct the adjudication of a post-confirmation statutory petition under the BSF Act, 1968 within a reasonable time frame.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions and suspension of sentence under the Border Security Force Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition seeking a writ of Mandamus may be dismissed as infructuous if the relief sought has already been satisfied by the respondents.
Entitlement to documents and expeditious adjudication under the BSF Act.
The court has the authority to direct the respondent to decide on petitions for suspension of sentence within specified timelines, especially when rigorous imprisonment is involved.
A petitioner is entitled to access documents of disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness in adjudication under the BSF Act.
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
