AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikas Bahl, J
This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the final result (Annexure P-8) vide which the name of the petitioner has not been recommended in the Pipe band category for Bagpiper instrument.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, the petitioner would give a detailed representation to the competent authority of respondent No.1-State within a period of two weeks from today and he would be satisfied at this stage, in case, the competent authority of respondent No.1-State is directed to consider the said representation in a time bound manner and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, to grant necessary relief, in accordance with law.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that the competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the abovesaid representation, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the competent authority of respondent No.1-State to consider the abovesaid representation, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the abovesaid representation and in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, the competent authority would grant necessary relief, in accordance with law and in case, the competent authority is of the opinion that the pleas raised by the petitioner are not meritorious, then, a speaking order rejecting the same be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority of respondent No.1-State would consider the case of the petitioner independently, in accordance with law.