AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 227 wordsOm Prakash VII, Member (J)
Shri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
At the outset learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant will be satisfied if authority concerned amongst the respondents is directed to consider and decide the representation dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure No. A-7) said to have been moved by the applicant before the authority concerned, in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant.
We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the applicant, no useful purpose will be served in keeping this O.A. pending. Therefore, without entering into the merits of this case, the O.A. is disposed of at this stage itself with a direction to the authority concerned amongst the respondent to decide the representation dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure No. A-7) said to have been moved by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the above direction the OA is disposed of. Associated MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No costs.