Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, GAURANG KANTH
Lokesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
"a.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing or setting aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2020 and the appellate order dated 01.11.2021/22.10.2021 to the extent it inflicts 3 punishments upon the Petitioner simultaneously;
b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release all consequential benefits of the Petitioner."
2. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present petition is fully covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2106/2012 decided on 15.02.2012.
3. Accordingly, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to treat the petition as a representation of the petitioner and take a decision on the same, on the lines of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, within 8 weeks from today.
4. The decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner with a reasoned order within one week thereafter.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of.
The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a representation of the petitioner and take a decision on the same, on the lines of a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The need for time-bound decision-making by authorities, taking into account relevant circumstances such as ongoing criminal cases.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding on the petitioner's representation within a specified timeframe and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of granting the petitioners the opportunity to make a final representation and ensuring that the respondents consider relevant polici....
Timely decision on appeal and communication of reasoned order.
Authorities must decide representations promptly as part of their duty to ensure timely justice.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of representations under Article 226 and issued a writ of mandamus to ensure the same.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to dispose of a petition when the respondents agree to revise the seniority list and provide consequential benefits if found eligible.
The court has the authority to issue a writ to compel a respondent to decide on a representation within a specified timeframe.
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
