The court disposed of a writ petition by consent, treating it as a representation to be addressed by the respondent authority via a speaking order, with the option to file independent proceedings if aggrieved.
Writ petition disposed; treated as representation requiring speaking order from respondent authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
V T M KABEER
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate with Mr. Arun Nischal, Advocate.
versus
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pramod Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R
% 07.12.2016
present writ petition is treated as a representation to the respondent and the appropriate authority in the respondent will pass a speaking order which will be communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, then, at that stage, petitioner can always file appropriate independent proceedings seeking redressal of his grievances.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 07, 2016 Ne
V T M KABEER
LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT
VALMIKI J. MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
