IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Savita(L/ct) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 7470 of 2023 & CM APPL. 29037 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Certiorari - Transfer Order - The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a second representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same on humanitarian grounds within four weeks, with a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioner within three days thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside/quash the 39th Inter Sectors Transfers 2023: Constable/GD and requested a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to stay on her posting order.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondents to treat the petition as a second representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide the same on humanitarian grounds within four weeks, with a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioner within three days thereafter.
Issues: Petitioner's representation rejection, humanitarian grounds for decision
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the respondents to consider the petition on humanitarian grounds and provide a reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum if aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on her representation.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. Vide this petition, petitioner is praying as under:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari to set aside/quash the 39th Inter Sectors Transfers 2023: Constable/GD vide its Service Order No.144/2023 issued by the office of the Directorate General (CISF) 13 CGO's Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi (Ministry of Home Affairs) dated 24.03.2023 and Order issued by the Office of the Deputy Inspector Genera (DIG)/Company Aviation Safety Officer (CASO) dated 06.05.2023 qua the petitioner.
(b) Pass a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to stay on her posting order."
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after passing of Transfer Order dated 24.03.2023, petitioner had made a representation to the respondents, however, the said representation was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that in the said representation, petitioner could not state all the grounds.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that present petition be treated as representation on behalf of petitioner and respondents be directed to decide the same on humanitarian ground.
5. In view of above, we hereby direct the respondents to treat this petition as second representation on behalf of petitioner and decide the same on humanitarian ground within four weeks from today. The decision so taken shall be communicated by the respondents to the petitioner within three days thereafter with a reasoned order.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.
7. Needless to say, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondents on her representation, she may approach the appropriate forum.
The court emphasized the consideration of humanitarian grounds in decision-making and the need for a reasoned order within a specified timeframe.
The court emphasized the importance of timely decision-making by the respondents and consideration of the petitioner's medical condition in reaching a decision.
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 emphasized the importance of the respondent deciding the petitioner's representation and communicating the decision with a reasoned order.
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.
Timely decision on representations and communication of reasoned orders by the respondents.
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 importance of considering the petitioner's representation and making a reasoned decision within a specified timeframe.
Courts may decline to interfere with transfer matters made in exigency of service, unless they are mala fide, punitive, or based on extraneous circumstances.
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.