Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/13518/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13518 of
2009
=========================================================
DHAREMSHKUMAR
LAXMANBHAI MAKWANA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DIVISIONAL
CONTROLLER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR.
U.T. MISHRA FOR MR TR MISHRA
for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 22/11/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with the following prayers:-
(a) Your
Lordship be pleased to allow and admit this petition;
(b) Your
Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing
respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment pursuant to letter dated 23.02.2006 informing the
petitioner that the case is kept pending and be further pleased to
direct respondent to immediately issue necessary order/s for
compassionate appointment.
(c) To
pass such other and further order/s or direction as it deems fit in
the interest of justice.
(d) Be
pleased to award the costs of this petition.
2. The
sole respondent has not appeared in spite of issuance of Notice of
Rule, on 22.03.2010.
3. I
have heard Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate for Mr. T.R. Mishra, on
behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by him that the father of
the petitioner expired on 30.04.2005, and the petitioner applied for
appointment on compassionate grounds on 23.06.2005. The respondent
replied by communication dated 23.02.2006, wherein it is stated that
the case of the petitioner is kept pending. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that as the case of the petitioner has neither
been considered, nor rejected, he was constrained to make a
representation to the respondent, on 23.06.2005. However, till today,
the said representation has not been decided.
4. In
view of the above, it is urged by the learned advocate for the
petitioner, that the interest of justice would be met, if the
respondent is directed to consider and decide the representation made
by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
5. In
view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it is
directed that the respondent shall decide representation dated
23.06.2005 made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible,
and preferably within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The
learned advocate for the petitioner undertakes to serve a copy of
this order directly, upon the respondent.
7. The
petition is disposed of, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute to
the above extent.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
Safir*
Top