Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Satish Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 11494 of 2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022
Representation - Decision on Representation by Concerned Superintendent of Police - The court directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to decide on the representation within three days, emphasizing that the decision must be reasoned and communicated without delay. If the representation is to be dismissed, valid and speaking reasons must be provided. The petitioner was also given liberty to pursue other legal remedies, and it was clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a decision on a representation dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) and the court directed the concerned Superintendent of Police to decide on it within three days.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the petition to the extent mentioned above, disposed of all pending applications, and clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
Issues: The main issue was the decision on the representation dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) submitted by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the concerned Superintendent of Police to provide a reasoned decision on the representation and to communicate it without delay. It also granted the petitioner liberty to pursue other legal remedies and clarified that there was no adjudication on merits.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned above, and all pending applications were disposed of.
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 the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use. Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
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
