M.Aysha Parveen v. The Home Secretary

WP.No.1912 of 2021 N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

Today, the matter is posted under the caption ''for being mentioned''.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though this Court has directed the 4th respondent to grant ordinary leave for a period of thirty days, since this Court has not specified any particular time limit, the 4th respondent is not acting upon the order passed by this Court.

3. In the considered view of this Court, this Court expected the petitioner to specifically mention the period for which the ordinary leave is sought for and the 4th respondent was directed to act upon the same. This Court never expected that the order will be kept in a limbo. This is purely an executive action for which there is no specific direction required by this Court. However, considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is directed to make a representation to the 4th respondent mentioning the exact period for http://www.judis.nic.in

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

which the ordinary leave is sought for and the 4th respondent shall act upon the same immediately on receipt of the representation in line with the order passed by this Court. This Clarification shall be incorporated at the end of the order and a fresh order copy shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

22.03.2021 rli WP.No.1912 of 2021 http://www.judis.nic.in