IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
DG CISF & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 5319 of 2023 & CM Appls. 20726-27 of 2023
Decided On : 26-04-2023
Representation - Transfer of Petitioner - The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeline, staying any movement order until the representation is decided.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to retain him at a specific CISF unit and quash the transfer order. The respondent had not yet decided the petitioner's representation.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeline, staying any movement order until the representation is decided.
Issues: Transfer order, Representation of petitioner, Stay of movement order
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeline, while also staying any movement order until the representation is decided.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation and communicate the decision within a specified timeline, staying any movement order until the representation is decided.
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 with a reasoned order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition along with pending applications is disposed of.
6. Needless to state that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision of the respondent on his representation, he may challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
7. It is made clear that if any movement order is passed qua petitioner herein, the same shall remain stayed until the decision is taken on the aforesaid representation filed by the petitioner.
Copy of this order be given dasti under signatures of Court Master.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.