Back
ANOOP CHITKARA
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anoop Chitkara, J. - After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to decide the representation dated 01.12.2022 (Anneuxre P-3).
2. Notices are served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.
3. Let the representation dated 01.12.2022, Annexure P-3 be decided by the concerned Superintendent of Police, within three days. It is clarified that such order must be a reasoned order, and the same be communicated to the representationists without delay. In case, the concerned SP wants to dismiss the representation, it must be supported by valid and speaking reasons.
4. Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file fresh petition or to take other legal remedies in accordance with the law.
5. It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioner is required in any cognizable case.
6. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for th
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Superintendent of Police on the representation and clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision by the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police and clarified the scope of the order, reserving liberty for the petitioner to pursue other ....
The right to seek fair and impartial investigation, the petitioner's entitlement to make a representation to the concerned authorities, and the reservation of liberty to pursue other legal remedies.
The court emphasized the importance of fair and impartial investigation and upheld the petitioner's right to seek appropriate directions and pursue legal remedies without adjudication on merits.
The court emphasized the importance of a reasoned decision on the representation and clarified the limited scope of the order.
Administrative authorities are required to address pending representations promptly, ensuring compliance with relevant government directives.
Public authorities must respond timely to representations made to them, reinforcing procedural fairness and the right of individuals to receive decisions.
Procedural compliance is crucial; representations must be made through proper channels and formats to be valid.
A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to ensure that authorities consider representations in compliance with legal principles.
Statutory authorities must address representations and cannot delay responses indefinitely, reinforcing the need for timely action.
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
