Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bulesh Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India on 24 November, 2021

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                   ON THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                                     BEFORE




                                                                         .
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                                         &
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA





                   CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5118 OF 2021
     Between:-

     BULESH KUMAR SHARMA
     (INDOS NO. 00NL8761) AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,





     S/O SH. MED RAM SHARMA,
     R/O VILLAGE BHATWARI PO KOT KHAMRADHA
     TEHSIL AUT, DISTRICT MANDI, HP.
                            r                                         ....PETITIONER

     (BY MR. JAI RAM SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.    UNION OF INDIA
      THROUGH NAUTICAL ADVISOR,
      MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT


      TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

2.    PRINCIPAL OFFICER,
      MERCANTILE MARINE DEPARTMENT




      MUMBAI, GOVT. OF INDIA.
                                                                   ..RESPONDENTS





     (MR. VIR BAHADUR VERMA, CGC)
     ________________________________________________________________________





            This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice

      Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:

                                    ORDER

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

"i) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to issued certificate of training (1st Mate) 1st Mate and grant the appointment/promotion as Chief Office to petitioner with all consequential benefits, in the interest of justice."
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:27 :::CIS 2

2. The perusal of the petition would go to show that the petitioner, at the first instance, has not taken up the matter with .

the respondent Department. In such circumstances, it will be appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus.

3. Heard. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the instant petition as a representation and take a decision within eight weeks from today.

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.


                                                  (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                        r                                   Judge

    November 24, 2021                                ( Satyen Vaidya )
          (naveen)                                         Judge








                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:27 :::CIS