High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 03 MEG CK 0044

Kamaraj JK vs Union Of India & 5 Ors

Meghalaya High Court · Decided on 13 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
H. S. Thangkhiew, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C). No. 41 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 323 words

H.S. Thangkhiew, J

1.

Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2-6.

2.

The writ petitioner appearing as petitioner in person, is before this Court with the following prayers:

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this Mandamus Writ petition, issue interim directions to the Respondents in the admission stage, to prevent the violation of Financial Standing order 2014 and to escalate the Motor Accident Claims, to the Appropriate Officer having Financial limits in Respondent Company Software GC Core, without further delay, and after hearing the parties on cause(s) shown, make the Rule absolute, if any, passed and

And/Or

be pleased to pass any other order(s)/directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray”.

Subsequently, by way of a Misc. application, the petitioner in person has augmented his prayers to include other reliefs.

3.

Today, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2-6, has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed indicating the fact that the impugned reliefs sought for in the writ petition no longer survive, in view of the fact that the new Financial Standing Order (FSO) 2022 has since been issued and the financial powers/limits defined therein, have been incorporated into the Respondent Insurance Company’s software (GC Core) for escalating and settling the Motor Insurance claims as well.

4.

Though objections have been raised by the petitioner in person with regard to the competency of the affidavit on the ground that the same has been sworn by an Officer who is not legally authorized, this Court overlooks this technical objection, and the writ petition stands closed on having been rendered infructuous. However, petitioner is at liberty to pursue any other reliefs, if still aggrieved.

5.

Accordingly, matter stands closed and disposed of.