Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Nirmal Chandra Mandal – Appellant
Versus
DG CISF – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking directions to the respondent, DG CISF, New Delhi, to transfer the petitioner at any CISF units of South East Sector or any alternative two sectors as per the choice given by him in terms of the circular dated 25.09.2017; quashing and setting aside of the order dated 02.05.2023 qua petitioner, consequential order dated 10.05.2023 and the relieving order dated 12.05.2023 wherein petitioner has been transferred from the present Unit of IGI Airport New Delhi to ASG Madurai, Tamil Nadu; directions to the respondents to pay cost of this litigation to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid relief(s), petitioner made representation dated 11.05.2023, however, till date, the said representation has not been decided by the respondents.
3. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to decide the abovementioned representation filed by the petitioner within four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereof to the petitioner within one week thereafter with a reasoned order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending ap
The court emphasized the importance of the respondent deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned orders by the respondents.
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.
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 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 timely decision-making by the respondents and granted relief to the petitioner by staying the movement order pending the decision on his representation.
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.
The court emphasized the importance of passing a reasoned order on the petitioner's representation and providing specific relief to the petitioner.
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
