Full Text
Translation output
'1!.^
10#
% 04.07.2011
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Sahrawat for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar for the respondent.
\
+W.P.(C) No. 4557/2011 & CM No. 9260/2011
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct
;r the respondent to adjudicate the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of one week.
Mr. Sahrawat, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 15.6.2011 and the said delay on the part of the petitioner took place on account of the fact that the respondent has not issued the deficiency letter within the stipulated period of 45 days and instead has issued the same after a delay of six months. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that had it been issued within the time then the petitioner would have been in a position to file the said statutory appeal in the month of
2011:DHC:17639
^ A.
November-December 2010 and the decision thereupon would have also been taken by the Appeal Committee well before the process of counseling, Mr. Amitesh Kumar counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, let the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner be decided by the
Appeal Committee in its very next meeting and the decision of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by the appeal committee forthwith.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
DASTI. f]
July 04, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg
2011:DHC:17639
10#
% 04.07.2011
Present:- Mr. Sanjay Sahrawat for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitesh Kumar for the respondent.
\
+W.P.(C) No. 4557/2011 & CM No. 9260/2011
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct
;r the respondent to adjudicate the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of one week.
Mr. Sahrawat, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 15.6.2011 and the said delay on the part of the petitioner took place on account of the fact that the respondent has not issued the deficiency letter within the stipulated period of 45 days and instead has issued the same after a delay of six months. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that had it been issued within the time then the petitioner would have been in a position to file the said statutory appeal in the month of
2011:DHC:17639
^ A.
November-December 2010 and the decision thereupon would have also been taken by the Appeal Committee well before the process of counseling, Mr. Amitesh Kumar counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, let the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner be decided by the
Appeal Committee in its very next meeting and the decision of the same shall be communicated to the petitioner by the appeal committee forthwith.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
DASTI. f]
July 04, 2011 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg
2011:DHC:17639
JUDGMENT