Disposed

Anil Kumar v. the Director Haryana State Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2013CWP/7798/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single-justice oral judgment in a writ petition filed by a petitioner aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education. The Court directed the Director to consider a legal notice raised by the petitioner and decide the grievance within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director of the Haryana State Board of Technical Education to consider the petitioner's legal notice dated 11.3.2013 and decide the same within 30 days.

Anil Kumar Vs the Director Haryana State… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.7798 of 2013

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.7798 of 2013 Date of decision:11.04.2013

Anil Kumar

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Director, Haryana State Board of Technical Education, Panchkula and another

¶9

...Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶13

Present: Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)

¶15

Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, he finally approached respondent No.1, by way of legal notice dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioner, within a reasonable time.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the

¶18

CWP No.7798 of 2013 2

¶19

issue of limitation, if any, Director, Haryana State Board of Technical Education, Haryana-respondent No.1 is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide his legal notice dated 11.3.2013 (Annexure P-5), which prima facie seems to be genuine and decide the same at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, in accordance with law and in any case within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

With the observations made above, the present writ petition

¶21

stands disposed of.

¶22

11.04.2013 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE

Anil Kumar v. the Director Haryana State Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. the Director Haryana State Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhu Batla Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Deepak Uppal and Anr. Vs HUDA

Inder Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Others

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another