SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 123336

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Maninder S. Bhatti, J
Shashikant Sirbaiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 41984 of 2026



Important Points

The Court directed the respondent authority to consider and decide a fresh representation submitted by the petitioner through a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Headnote

(Writ of Mandamus) - Administrative Action - Direction to the authority to decide a representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated timeframe.

Issues: Whether the respondent authority should be directed to decide the petitioner's representation within a fixed time limit.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • administrative law
    • remedies
      • mandamus
    • natural justice
      • speaking orders
  • practice and procedure
    • writ jurisdiction

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sourabh Singh Thakur
For the Respondents: Shweta Yadav

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the pending representation/complaint dated 02.09.2026 (Annexure P/3) submitted by the Petitioner, through a reasoned and speaking order, within some stipulated period.

(ii) Grant any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that highlighting the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner is willing to move fresh representation before respondent No. 2/Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur and in such eventuality, respondent No. 2 be directed to decide the same within a stipulated time.

The aforesaid innocuous prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid innocuous prayer, without expressing any view on the merit of the case, the petition stands disposed of with direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation highlighting his aforesaid grievance within 15 days from today before respondent No. 2, the same shall be dealt with by respondent No. 2 within a further period of 90 days by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law while extending an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 9.

It is reiterated that this Court has not expressed any view on the merit of the case and respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to deal with the representation of the petitioner, in his own wisdom, in accordance with law.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top