-
by sayum
01 August 2026 2:00 PM
The court observed, "There is some kind of ambiguity in the English translation of rules particularly in Rule 6(3)(xiii) which reads as 'hear on appeal of an aggrieved person.' The word 'hear' ought to have been 'prefer,' i.e., giving a right to the affected person to file an appeal."
The judgment further clarified that Rule 7 defines the Appellate Authority concerning the denial of a license, comprising members from the Administrative Secretary of the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Administrative Secretary of the Health Department, and the Director of the Social Justice and Empowerment Department.
Responding to the court's notice, Mr. Samarth Sagar, Addl. AG, Haryana, acknowledged the ambiguity and assured that the appeal filed by the petitioner would be sent to the Appellate Authority for prompt resolution within the week. He further committed to expedite the disposal of the appeal, preferably within two weeks from the date of the judgment.
In light of these developments, the petition has been disposed of with a clear directive to the respondents to consider and resolve the petitioner's appeal promptly, ensuring a fair and efficient process.
This judgment underscores the significance of legal clarity and procedural transparency in matters of licensing and appeals, particularly in sensitive areas such as drug de-addiction centers.
Date of Decision: 30.10.2023
Janta Welfare Society Charitable Trust VS State of Haryana and others
[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/30-Oct-2023-Janta_Welfare_Society_Charitable_vs_State_Of_Haryana_And_Others.pdf"]
