Single judge disposed of a writ petition without addressing merits, directing Opposite Party No.2 to decide on the petitioner's representation and pass an order within three months.
Direction to Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate order within three months.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 26242 of 2019
02. 02.01.2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking for a direction to opposite parties to declare the election of Maa Padmabati Pani Panchayat No. 53 conducted in pursuance of notification dated 18.11.2019 in Annexure-1 as null and void.
In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievance, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-4, but no decision has yet been taken.
Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.2 to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-4 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Ajaya
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the declaration of the election as null and void.
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.2
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
