Jurisdictional objection must be decided by a reasoned order before merits are considered in ongoing proceedings.

A jurisdictional objection was raised to proceedings before respondent no. 3, questioning whether that authority could lawfully proceed. The Delhi High Court allowed the proceedings to continue for the time being, but required respondent no. 3 to consider the petitioner's submissions and decide the jurisdictional objection first by a reasoned order before moving to the merits. No final determination on jurisdiction was made in the document, and further action on the merits was made conditional on that preliminary decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether respondent no. 3 had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and whether a reasoned order on jurisdiction should be passed first.

Analysis: The petition raised a fundamental jurisdictional objection to the proceedings before respondent no. 3. The Court permitted the proceedings to continue for the time being, but directed respondent no. 3 to deal with the petitioner's submissions and to decide the jurisdictional objection by a reasoned order before proceeding to the merits.

Outcome: No final adjudication on the jurisdictional issue was made. The matter was left to be decided first by respondent no. 3 through a reasoned order, with further action on merits depending on that decision.

---