Pending representation must be decided by a reasoned speaking order after hearing, without any merits adjudication.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners' pending representation and dispose of it by a reasoned speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing, because the failure to act on the representation was not satisfactorily explained. The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the representation and confined relief to securing a lawful decision on the pending request. The writ petition thus succeeded only to the limited extent of requiring consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and dispose of the petitioners' pending representation by a reasoned and speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The writ petition was founded on the respondents' failure to dispose of the petitioners' representations. The respondents did not dispute the inability to explain the inaction. The Court therefore directed consideration of the pending representation in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing, and expressly recorded that it had not examined the merits of the representation.

Conclusion: The representation was directed to be decided by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the limited extent of securing a time-bound decision on the pending representation, without any adjudication on merits.

---