Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Director General Central Industrial Security Force – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case heard by video conferencing. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners seek decision on appeals. (Para 2) |
| 3. respondents acknowledge consideration of appeals. (Para 3) |
| 4. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.: (Oral)
C.M.No.38255/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.12213/2021
1. The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that a direction be issued to the respondents to decide the appeals dated 19th June, 2018 filed by the petitioners. She emphasises that grievances of the petitioners in the present writ petition is the inaction of the respondents in deciding the petitioners' appeals.
3. Issue notice. Mr.T.P.Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He states that the aforesaid appeals are under active consideration.
4. Keeping in view the limited prayer sought by the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeals dated 19th June, 2018 filed by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight we
The court emphasized the need for timely resolution of grievances presented by petitioners in the face of administrative inaction.
Government authorities must decide representations promptly, ensuring procedural obligations are met without adjudicating the merits of the controversy.
The court has the authority to direct a respondent to decide a representation within a specified timeframe without commenting on the merit of the controversy.
The court directed the respondent to decide the appellant's representations within eight weeks, clarifying no interference was warranted with the Single Judge's decision.
Letters Patent Appeals are untenable if no rights or liabilities of parties are decided in the impugned order.
The court directed the lower court to expedite the resolution of pending appeals, emphasizing the need for timely judicial processes.
Court directs expeditious disposal of pending mutation applications within three months.
Equal treatment under the law requires that similarly situated individuals receive consistent legal benefits and remedies.
A party may withdraw an appeal with court permission, leaving relevant legal questions open for determination in future cases.
Judicial precedent mandates promotion of petitioners based on prior rulings, contingent on eligibility criteria.
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
