CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 JH CK 0062

Md. Ibrar Ahmad Khan and Md. Parwez vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 20 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 3920 of 2008
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 368 words

D.N. Patel

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that suffice it will be for disposal of this writ petition, if a direction is given to respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claims of the petitioners, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who have submitted that they have no much objection, if such a direction is given to respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claims of the petitioners, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law and within stipulated time, as given by this Court.

3.

In view of these submissions, I hereby direct respondent no. 1 to treat this writ petition as a representation and decide the claim of the petitioners, by passing a detailed speaking order, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, polices and Government enforceable orders, applicable to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or to their representatives. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the case of the petitioners is like the petitioner of W.P. (S) No. 5672 of 2005, whose case has been decided by this Court vide order dated 12th September, 2007, which is at Annexure-3 to the memo of this petition. This annexure will be considered by respondent no. 1. It will be kept in mind by respondent no. 1 that there is no counter affidavit filed by the State Government, despite the matter is of the year 2008. There is no denial of any of the allegations by the State, therefore, this direction is given to the State to take a decision, in accordance with law.

4.

If the decision is taken in favour of the present petitioners, necessary actual benefits will be extended to them within further period of four weeks, thereafter.

5.

In view of the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.