DINESH MEHTA
Minakshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - I.A. No.1/2023:
1. For the reasons stated, the application seeking preponement of date is allowed.
2. The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent to decide his representation expeditiously.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file a representation along with the web copy of the order dated 14.03.2019 rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15411/2018) and in the case of Dhanraj Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12846/2017), decided on 15.01.2018 within a period of two weeks along with certified copy of the order instant.
5. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority of respondent shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks.
6. It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to
The court emphasized the need for expeditious redressal of the petitioners' grievance.
The court established that while it can direct the consideration of representations, it does not dictate the outcome of such considerations.
Government authorities must decide representations promptly, ensuring procedural obligations are met without adjudicating the merits of the controversy.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious redressal of grievances and directed the competent authority to consider the representation for verification of qualifications within a specified timefra....
The court established that while delays in administrative processes can occur, there is a legal obligation to address grievances expeditiously without prejudicing the rights of the parties involved.
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.
Court directed timely response to the petitioner's pending representation under Article 226.
The court emphasized the necessity for the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation in light of previous judicial decisions, ensuring timely redressal without dictating the outcome.
Mandamus issued directing authority to consider representation on merits within 12 weeks after notice.
Administrative authorities are required to address pending representations promptly, ensuring compliance with relevant government directives.
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.