Satya Devi Petitioner v. Union Of India And Others S

Sanjay Karol, A.C.J (Oral):— It is seen that the petitioner has made application (Annexure P-14) and representation dated 29.7.2016 (Annexure P-18) to the Secretary (GAD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which are still pending before the authorities concerned.

2. Without pressing the petition on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authorities concerned to decide petitioner's application (Annexure P-14) and representation (Annexure P-18) expeditiously. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Addl. Advocate General has no objection to the same.

3. No other point urged.

4. Leaving the question of law open, a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's application (Annexure P-14) and representation (Annexure P-18), in accordance with law, by affording due opportunity of hearing/representation to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioner, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same which shall be communicated to the petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, as also the pending application(s), if any.