Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
DG CISF – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent DG CISF, New Delhi to retain the petitioner at any CISF units of North Sector only at his fourth service tenure in terms of the circular dated 25.09.2017; quashing and setting aside of the order dated 24.03.2023 qua petitioner and consequential order dated 14.04.2023 wherein petitioner has been transferred from the present Unit of IGI Airport New Delhi to CISF Unit NLC Neyveli, Tamil Nadu; and directions to the respondents to pay cost of this litigation to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has made a representation dated 27.03.2023, however, the same has not yet been decided by the respondent till date.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent appearing on advance notice has assured this Court that the aforesaid representation dated 27.03.2023 shall be decided at the earliest.
4. In view of the above, we hereby direct the respondents to decide the aforementioned representation filed by the petitioner on or before 28.04.2023 and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within two days thereafter wit
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making on the petitioner's representation and the stay of any movement order until the representation is decided.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned orders by the respondents.
The court emphasized the importance of the respondents deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order, in line with the petitioner's request for retenti....
The court emphasized the importance of the respondent deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents and granted relief to the petitioner by staying the movement order pending the decision on his representation.
The court emphasized the principle of mandamus and directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation within a specific timeline.
The court's emphasis on the need for timely decision-making and communication of reasoned orders in response to representations made by petitioners seeking relief through writ of mandamus.
The court emphasized the importance of passing a reasoned order on the petitioner's representation and providing specific relief to the petitioner.
Authorities must decide representations timely and fairly, adhering to principles of administrative justice.
The court emphasized the duty of authorities to decide pending representations in a timely manner, confirming jurisdiction to compel action under Article 226.
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
