9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shah i/b PDS Legal For the Respondent : Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly i/b Anamika Malhotra ORDER P.C. : The limited grievance raised in the Petition is that though Respondent No.2 has heard the matter, the order in original has been passed after a period of almost one and half year from the date of hearing of the matter. 2. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Jetly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hts of the parties. Detailed guidelines have been issued by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 so that the delay in delivery of the judgment after the matter is concluded is prevented. It will also be appropriate to refer to observations of the Apex Court in the case of R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 574 : "The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Constitutional Court i.e. the High Court, there should be no delay between the conclusion of the case and passing of an order, it will not be permissible for the Tribunals to pass orders after inordinate delay. 6. On the short ground, the Petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to Respondent No.2 for he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
