Disposed

Purushottam Nana Porkute v. Union of India

Delhi HC12 Apr 2017W.P.(C)/2938/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the inaction regarding a pending application for Notary certificate renewal. The Court directed the Union of India to dispose of the application via a speaking order with specific timelines for consideration and hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to dispose of the pending Notary renewal application via a speaking order within a specified timeline after receiving further documents and a hearing.

Purushottam Nana Porkute Vs Union of India — Delhi HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~30

¶2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 12.04.2017

¶3

W.P.(C) 2938/2017

¶4

PURUSHOTTAM NANA PORKUTE ..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA

.... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Bhargavan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Jasmeet Singh, CGSC with Mr.Srivats Kaushal, Advocate for UOI.

¶10

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT 12.04.2017

¶11

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-UOI to consider and decide the application for renewal of certificate of Notary filed by the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 11^th September, 2015 in W.P. (C) No.8503/2015 titled Neelam Sharma Versus Union of India .

¶14

This Court is of the opinion that as the representation/renewal

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

WP(C) 2938/2017

¶17

application; filed by the petitioner is still pending, the respondent must dispose of the same by way of a speaking order.

¶18

Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶19

(i) The petitioner, if he so desires, may, within 10 days hereof, file more particulars/documents in support of his explanation for the delay in applying for renewal, if any.

¶20

(ii) The respondent shall thereafter, within six weeks of the receipt of such further documents from the petitioner, consider the grounds given by the petitioner for condonation of delay in applying for renewal and shall take a reasoned decision thereon.

¶21

(iii) The respondent, if of the opinion that the petitioner is to be denied the renewal for any other reason, would, after notifying the petitioner of the said reason and after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard thereon within the subject period of six weeks, shall pass reasoned order within a period of three months from today.

¶22

(iv) Needless to state that if the petitioners remains aggrieved, he shall have his remedies.

¶23

Copy of order be given dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

¶24

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶25

APRIL 12, 2017 st

¶26

Page 2 of 2

¶27

WP(C) 2938/2017

Purushottam Nana Porkute v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purushottam Nana Porkute v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurang Kanth Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr.

Yogender Kumar & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kundan Care Products Ltd. Vs Foreign Trade Development Officer and Ors.

Jan Mohammad Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajinder Prashad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Pema Tsekyi Bhutia Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tenzin Passang Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Tara Chand and Ors.

Jagdish Factory Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Sashiyongdang Ao Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

M/S Ajit Kapoor Store Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

A Derinse Vs Union of India and Anr.

Gyanendra Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Arvind Ratnakar Rathod Vs Union of India