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
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Headnote
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
-
remedies
-
practice and procedure
- writ jurisdiction
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.