GABRIAL MATHIAS Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioners who claim to be senior citizens is as to non-consideration of their representation dtd. 15/5/2023, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B, wherein they have sought for some help at the hands of the respondents-police. The learned Co- ordinate Judge of this Court by ad interim order dtd. 11/5/2023 had directed status quo. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that where a representation of the kind is given for redressal of the grievances, Article 350 of the Constitution enjoins a duty on the authority concerned to consider the same and inform result of such consideration, forthwith. This having not happened, his clients are justified in complaining in writ jurisdiction, says the counsel.

(2.) Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents having resisted the petition for some time now notifies to the court that after this status quo order was obtained, the defendant in the suit filed by the petitioners herein was secured to the jurisdictional police station and that they have given an undertaking to honour the status quo order pending disposal of the said suit. Therefore learned HCGP seeks disposal of the petition there being no need to kept it pending.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made by the HCGP on behalf of the authorities and therefore accordingly disposes off the petition since the defendants in the concerned suit are stated to have given an undertaking to the police to maintain status quo. It hardly needs to be stated that it is open to the petitioners to seek assistance of the jurisdictional police, if again need be. Ordered accordingly and writ petition is disposed off. Costs made easy.