The Court held that the impugned order not being examined, the petition was treated as a representation and directed the respondent to decide it after hearing parties within eight weeks.
Respondent to consider petition as a representation and decide it within eight weeks after hearing all concerned parties.
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.
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Through: Counsel for petitioner (appearance not given).
versus
THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr S.K. Sethi, Advocate for R-1 to R- 3, Alongwith Mr Balraj Singh, SDM (Dwarka) Mr Shivam Bajaj, Advocate for R-4 to R-6.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R
% 01.11.2017
said issue has not been examined and requests that the directions be issued to treat the present petition as a representation.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
NOVEMBER 01, 2017 cks
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Scheduled Tribe certificate could be issued to the community 'Mina/Meena' in Delhi.
Prakash Nagar
The Chief Secretary and Ors.
Vibhu Bakhu
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
