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
8 paragraphs · 213 wordsRomesh Verma, J
The petitioner has approached this Court for the following main relief:
“Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 02.01.2026 of the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-3 within time bound manner in the interest o justice and fair play.”
During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/authority to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) sympathetically within a period of three weeks’ from today by passing a speaking order and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner.
Needless to say, that the petitioner may also be heard for the redressal of his grievance and the order shall be communicated to the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case, and the authority shall take a decision strictly in consonance with the provisions of law.
Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.