A bench dismissed a writ petition concerning the petitioner's inability to appear before the FRRO due to denial of entry, directing the respondent to decide his outstanding representation within eight weeks.
Direction to the respondent to decide the petitioner's representation with a speaking order and furnish a copy within eight weeks.
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.
$~50
KARAN S. THAUKRAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Yadav, Advocate with Petitioner in person
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Rabiya Singh Thakur with Ms. Shalini Nair, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
CM. APPL. 10214/2018
W.P.(C) 2455/2018
the respondent to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner. The respondent will pass a speaking order. A copy of the order will be furnished to the petitioner. Let the needful be done by the respondent within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 16, 2018/Nk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent should dispose of the petitioner's grievance regarding denial of entry to FRRO and failure to decide his representation.
Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to appear in the matter with his client before the foreigner regional registration officer.
KARAN S. THAUKRAL
UNION OF INDIA
RAJIV SHAKDHER
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
