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
5 paragraphs · 159 wordsL. Narayana Swamy, CJ
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had already made representation(s) before the respondents, which have not been decided, so far. He prays that the petitioners may be permitted to file fresh representation(s) before the respondents, who may be directed to decide the same in a time bound manner. His statement is taken on record.
Ms. Ritta Goswami, learned Additional Advocate General submits that no representation(s) filed by the petitioners are pending with the respondents. She further submits that if the petitioners file fresh representation(s), the respondents shall consider and decide the same.
In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by permitting the petitioners to file fresh representation(s) before the respondents, who shall consider and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation(s).
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications.