The writ petitions against the dissolution of the House of Representatives, recommended by Prime Minister Sushila Karki, have been stuck in a 'deadline' for a week.

Supreme Court spokesperson Arjun Koirala said that while all the respondents in the 16 petitions initially filed in the Supreme Court and one filed later had to be served with time limits, only some of the respondents have been served with time limits.

The Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench had ordered the submission of a written response within seven days in the petition filed against the appointment of former Chief Justice Sushila Karki as Prime Minister and the dissolution of the House of Representatives after the Gen-G movement on 12 Kartik.

The Supreme Court had refused to issue an interim order as requested by the petitioner and legal practitioners. The order had said that a written response along with a travel time limit should be submitted within a week.

Even though a week has passed since the order was issued, the process of serving time limits is still ongoing. According to Supreme Court sources, so far, time limits have been served only in the President's Office, Sheetal Niwas, and the Prime Minister's Office, Singha Dabar. The deadline has not been served on the bodies including Prime Minister Sushila Karki, the Parliament Secretariat.

According to the Supreme Court order, all bodies get 15 days after the Supreme Court's deadline is served. The Attorney General's Office has stated that it will take some more time to receive the written response since the Supreme Court has given seven days and there is a deadline for an extension of seven days. The written responses submitted to the Supreme Court in this way must be submitted to the Supreme Court through the Attorney General's Office. The Supreme Court's order also states that they should be submitted through the Attorney General's Office.

Since the Constitutional Bench's order said that after the opposing bodies send written responses, it seems that the written response for the final hearing should be received.

The President's Office, Sheetal Niwas, Prime Minister Sushila Karki, Speaker Devraj Ghimire, the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, and the Parliament Secretariat were named as respondents in the writ petition. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court sets the date for the hearing after all the parties submit their written responses. The Constitutional Bench, which also included the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, did not order the hearing by fixing a date and did not give priority, so it seems that the time limit was delayed in the process.

The Constitutional Bench, comprising Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut, Justices Sapana Pradhan Malla, Kumar Regmi, Hari Prasad Phuyal and Manoj Sharma, had ordered that the hearing be held according to the regular procedure despite the petitioner's request for priority and priority in the hearing. The bench said that the interim order should not be issued, saying that the matters sought by the petitioner in the interim order were of a nature that should be considered during the final hearing.

Similarly, the Constitutional Bench had ordered that a written response be sought in the writ petition of Advocate Punya Prasad Khatiwada on Kartik 19. In the writ petition, written responses were sought from some of the opponents in a similar dispute on 12 Kartik, so an order was issued to demand them from the remaining opponents. Koirala, spokesperson of the Supreme Court, said that the deadlines for both writ petitions are being met separately by the opponents who have received the deadlines.

In the writ petition that reached the Supreme Court, they have questioned the constitutional basis for appointing Sushila Karki as Prime Minister, the President's authority to form the government, the appointment of the former Chief Justice as Prime Minister, the jurisdiction of the electoral government, and the dissolution of the House of Representatives by the interim Prime Minister.