The court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner sought a mandate to expedite a pending appeal. The High Court directed the respondent to examine the appeal and pass orders expeditiously instead of issuing a mandamus.
The third respondent directed to examine the pending appeal and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.1313 of 2016
ORDER:
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the appeal, which is filed before the 3rd respondent, is pending and seeks early consideration and disposal of the same.
The copy of the appeal produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner itself states that the appeal is acknowledged by the office of the 3rd respondent on 23-01-2016 and the appeal has to be necessarily scrutinized, notices to have to go the persons affected and the respondents and only thereafter the appeal can be heard and disposed of.
Since the said appeal is filed two days back, I do not see any reason to issue any Mandamus to the respondents. However, the 3rd respondent is directed to examine the appeal and deal with the same by passing appropriate orders expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J
Date: 25-01-2016 Prv
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
W.P.No.1313 of 2016
25-01-2016
Prv
Petitioner
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
