Competent authorities must decide pending representations through reasoned and speaking orders within six weeks.

The applicants, Shri Tej Ram and Shri Sant Raj, filed the Original Application seeking a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to consider and decide their pending representations dated 02.06.2025 and 06.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

The applicants also filed applications seeking exemption and permission to join together in the proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed both miscellaneous applications, observing that the applicants had common reliefs arising from a common cause of action.

During hearing, counsel for the applicants restricted the prayer to a direction for consideration and disposal of the representations.

The respondents’ proxy counsel accepted notice and stated that the representations would be considered in accordance with law, if they had not already been decided.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to a direction requiring the competent authority to consider and decide their pending representations dated 02.06.2025 and 06.01.2026 by a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether the miscellaneous applications for exemption and joining together were liable to be allowed.

The Tribunal applied the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness, particularly the requirement that a competent authority consider a pending representation and communicate its decision through a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal also proceeded on the settled procedural principle that applicants having common reliefs arising from a common cause of action may be permitted to join together in one proceeding.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Since the applicants’ representations remained pending, and the respondents did not oppose their consideration, the Tribunal found it just and proper to issue a limited procedural direction consistent with natural justice.

The Tribunal did not adjudicate the substantive merits of the applicants’ claims; instead, it required the competent authority to independently examine the representations and issue a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed time.

The applicants were permitted to proceed jointly because their claims involved common reliefs and a common cause of action.

The competent authority among the respondents was directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representations dated 02.06.2025 and 06.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the applicants at the earliest.

The Tribunal clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits and left the respondents free to decide the representations in accordance with law.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.