Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Ramu Ram Saran – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash a specific order. (Para 1) |
| 2. representation to be decided in a time-bound manner. (Para 2) |
| 3. decision must be communicated and can be challenged. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. writ petition disposed of along with any pending applications. (Para 5 , 6) |
1. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 24.01.2022 issued by the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that representation dated 03.02.2022 made by the petitioner will be decided in a time-bound manner; and till then, the respondents will not proceed with order dated 24.01.2022 directing the petitioner's de-novo trial.
3. Let the above-mentioned representation of the petitioner be decided within six (06) weeks from today and the decision taken thereupon be communicated in writing to the petitioner within one (01) week thereafter.
4. Needless to state that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents on his representation, he may challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law,
The court emphasized timely resolution of administrative representations while preserving the right to appeal the outcome in appropriate judicial forums.
Authorities must decide representations promptly as part of their duty to ensure timely justice.
The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication of representations under Article 226 and issued a writ of mandamus to ensure the same.
Timely decision on representations is essential, and the court has the authority to direct the respondent to decide the representation within a specified timeframe.
A Writ of Mandamus may be issued directing public authorities to consider and dispose of a pending administrative representation within a specified timeframe without expressing opinion on the merits.
The authority must consider the petitioner's representation and the rules and regulations of the policy when deciding on promotion matters and must pass a speaking order.
Court directed timely response to the petitioner's pending representation 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
