M.Aysha Parveen v. The Home Secretary
Case brief
What is this about?
On a matter posted for mention regarding a writ petition, the Court clarified that it expected the petitioner to specify the period for ordinary leave. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the 4th respondent with the exact period, ensuring the matter is not kept in limbo.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner directed to make a representation specifying the exact period for ordinary leave; 4th respondent directed to act upon it immediately after receipt.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
WP.No.1912 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
Today, the matter is posted under the caption ''for being mentioned''.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though this Court has directed the 4th respondent to grant ordinary leave for a period of thirty days, since this Court has not specified any particular time limit, the 4th respondent is not acting upon the order passed by this Court.
- In the considered view of this Court, this Court expected the petitioner to specifically mention the period for which the ordinary leave
is sought for and the 4th respondent was directed to act upon the same. This Court never expected that the order will be kept in a limbo. This is purely an executive action for which there is no specific direction required by this Court. However, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to make a http://www.judis.nic.in representation to the 4th respondent mentioning the exact period for
1
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
which the ordinary leave is sought for and the 4th respondent shall act
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the 4th respondent is acting in violation of the Court's previous order by not granting ordinary leave within a specified time limit.
Whether the petitioner can be directed to clarify the period for which ordinary leave is sought via representation.
Whether the 4th respondent is directed to act upon the representation immediately on receipt.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
N. Anand Venkatesh
- respondent
4th Respondent
- other
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court