This judgment summarily disposes of a writ petition by directing the respondent authority to decide a pending representation submitted by the petitioner without unreasonable delay.
Directed respondent no. 4 to decide the pending representation dated 30.12.2014 without unreasonable delay.
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.
WPMS No. 717 of 2015
U.C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the writ petitioner.
Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Brief Holder for the respondent State.
Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the extent that the respondent no. 4 be directed to decide the representation dated 30.12.2014 made by the petitioner, which is still pending, before said authority.
The prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is innocuous and worth accepting.
Heard learned counsel for the parties, as also the grounds taken up in the writ petition and perused the documents brought on record.
The writ petition is disposed of summarily by directing respondent no. 4 to decide the representation dated 30.12.2014 made by the petitioner, pending before said authority, one way or another, as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay, in accordance with law.
Interim relief application no. 3233 of 2015 also stands disposed of.
HN
Writ Petitioner
Respondent State
Respondent no. 3
Respondent no. 4
U.C. Dhyani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
