Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Satyendra Kumar Bind – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2934 of 2023
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Mandamus - Statutory Petition - Adjudication under BSF Act, 1968
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent DG BSF to adjudicate a post-confirmation statutory petition under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969. The petition had been pending for over four months without adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the post-confirmation statutory petition of the petitioner within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
Issues: Delay in adjudication of post-confirmation statutory petition under BSF Act, 1968
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the delay in adjudicating the petition was unreasonable and directed the respondent to decide the petition within a specified time frame.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to adjudicate the post-confirmation statutory petition within four weeks and communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week thereafter.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs:
"a.) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing the respondent DG BSF, to adjudicate the post-confirmation statutory petition dated 29.10.2022 preferred under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 R/w Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 before the in a time bound manner."
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that post-confirmation statutory petition dated 29.10.2022 under Section 117(2) of the BSF Act, 1968 read with Rule 167 of the BSF Rules, 1969 has been preferred by the petitioner against the findings and sentence of the General Security Force Court held from 14.03.2022 to 22.04.2022 and the Orders of Confirmation and Promulgation dated 27.07.2022 and 30.07.2022 respectively.
3. It may be noted that despite a lapse of more than four months, the said post-confirmation statutory petition dated 29.10.2022 has not been adjudicated by the respondent No. 2/Director General, BSF.
4. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that a number of such petitions are pending with the respondent No. 2 due to the reason that the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force has been given the additional charge of Director General, Border Security Force/respondent No. 2.
5. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the said post-confirmation statutory petition of the petitioner within four weeks from today.
6. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner in writing within one week thereafter.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
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.
Timely adjudication of statutory petitions and suspension of sentence under the Border Security Force Act.
Entitlement to documents and expeditious adjudication under the BSF Act.
A petitioner is entitled to access documents of disciplinary proceedings to ensure fairness in adjudication under the BSF Act.
The court has the authority to direct the Competent Authority to expedite the disposal of petitions and consider requests for suspension of sentence in accordance with the law.
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.
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.
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
