Back
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.
Challang M. Marak - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Anr. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 258 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Incompetent Authority - Representation - The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation expeditiously, but the order of disposal was passed by a different officer. The court directed the representation to be decided afresh by the competent authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was aggrieved by an order passed by the Commanding Officer, alleging it was passed by an incompetent authority. The petitioner complied with the court's directions to present the representation, but the order of disposal was passed by a different officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel were correct, as admitted by the respondents. The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the representation to be presented for consideration afresh before the competent authority.
Issues: Alleged order passed by incompetent authority, non-compliance with court directions, need for representation to be decided afresh by competent authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-compliance with its previous directions and the acknowledgment by the respondents that the contentions raised by the petitioner were correct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the representation to be presented for consideration afresh before the competent authority, who shall decide the same expeditiously. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Commanding Officer, Special Force-10, where it is alleged that the order had been passed by the incompetent authority.
2. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court vide order dated 10.12.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 399 of 2020, had directed the respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 11.09.2018 expeditiously and for the petitioner to present himself before the said respondent on 21.12.2020. Learned counsel further submits that the writ petitioner accordingly complied with the directions of this Court. The petitioner presented himself before the Commanding Officer and the representation was taken up for consideration as directed by this Court. However, the order of disposal of the representation has been passed by a different officer and not by the officer to whom he had presented the same. In view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that the directions as contained in the order dated 10.12.2020 have not been carried out, and prays that the representation be decided afresh by the competent authority.
3. Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned AAG assisted by Ms. I. Lyngwa, learned GA for the State respondents has produced a communication dated 11.10.2021 wherein at para-4, the said contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct and the same admitted by the respondents. The said letter is accepted and made part of the record.
4. Considering the submissions at the bar by the learned AAG, this writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the writ petitioner shall present the representation for consideration afresh before the respondent No. 2 on 02.11.2021 at 11:00 A.M who shall decide the same expeditiously.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
6. No order as to costs.
Non-compliance with court directions and acknowledgment of correctness of petitioner's contentions by the respondents influenced the court's decision to direct the representation to be decided afresh....
Administrative authorities must timely decide on service-related petitions made by their employees, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.
Authorities must decide representations promptly as part of their duty to ensure timely justice.
The court established that while it can direct the consideration of representations, it does not dictate the outcome of such considerations.
The court has the authority to direct a respondent to decide a petitioner's representation within a stipulated period of time.
Mandamus can be issued to compel public authorities to perform their duties when there is a failure to do so.
A government authority must respond to grievances timely, following the appropriate legal procedures.
Writ petition infructuous post consideration of representation; liberty granted to challenge order before competent authority.
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
