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 · 234 wordsAlok Kumar Verma, J
Heard Mr. Faizan Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Karmanya Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate, contended that the petitioners are street vendors. On 08.10.2020, a resolution was passed by the respondent no.4 to issue licenses to the vendors for their livelihood. The petitioners submitted their representation (annexure no.4 to the writ petition) to the respondent no.4. The said representation is still pending.
Mr. Faizan Ali, Advocate, has requested to decide the present writ petition directing the respondent no.4 to decide the said representation (annexure no.4 to the writ petition) at the earliest.
Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.4, on instructions, has sought four weeks’ time for deciding the said representation (annexure no.4 to the writ petition).
With the consent of both the parties, the present Writ Petition (WPMS No. 1144 of 2025) is disposed of directing the respondent no.4 to decide the said representation (annexure no.4 to the writ petition) as expeditiously as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.