AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil B. Shukre, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that final hearing of the claim for enhancement of the compensation amount lodged by the petitioner before respondent no.2 is already over and the matter is closed for final order on 20th April 2021 and no order so far has been passed by respondent no.2. He further submits that it is only because of the long pendency of the decision of respondent no.2 that this petition has been filed seeking mandamus to respondent no.2 for early disposal of the claim of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are in all 19 ½ such petitions in which similar directions have been sought by those petitioners and those petitions are described particularly in the list of writ petitions submitted across the bar today by learned counsel for the petitioners, which is taken on record and marked as “Document-A”.
The petitions listed in Document-A are not on board today. Considering the fact that the issue involved in this petition and the issue involved in those petitions, both, are similar, it is directed that they be taken on production board.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties..
We find that the prayer made by the petitioner is reasonable and, therefore, appropriate direction would have to be deservedly issued to respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is directed to finally decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, at the earliest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this court, if not already decided.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Petition is disposed of.