Sandeep Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 21 Feb 2025 · 2025:DHC:1141-DB
Navin Chawla; Shalinder Kaur
W.P.(C) 2302/2025
2025:DHC:1141-DB
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition as an abuse of process for seeking to reopen issues already conclusively decided by earlier judicial orders.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 2302/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21.02.2025
W.P.(C) 2302/2025
SANDEEP YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhijeet Gupta, Ms.Aarzu Khattar and Ms.Aastha Jhamb, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Piyush Beriwal, SPC
WITH
Mr.Amit Acharya, GP, Mr.Sandip Munian and
Ms.Jyotsna Vyas, Advs. for R-1 and R-3 Mr.Ajay Pal, Law Officer, Mr.Athurv and Mr.Rajesh
Singh, CRPF Mr.Ravinder Agarwal and Mr.Manish Kumar Singh, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 10926/2025 (Exemption)
JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs: - “(A) Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus, or any other writ, to decide the Complaint no.

3. From the averments made in the petition itself, it is quite apparent that the present petition is nothing but a form of harassment of the respondents and trying to keep issues that are long dead and buried alive.

4. Just as a short background, the petitioner was removed from service vide an Order dated 12.07.2018. The petitioner challenged the same by way of a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 9571/2018, which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide an Order dated 01.11.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the Order before the Supreme Court in the form of SLP (C) No. 6900/2019, which was dismissed vide Order dated 15.03.2019.

5. From thereafter, the petitioner began submitting fresh representations to the respondents, to which the respondents have been duly replying.

6. As noted by us hereinabove, the present petition is yet another attempt to re-open the issues that have long been settled. We, therefore, refuse to entertain the present petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J SHALINDER KAUR, J FEBRUARY 21, 2025/sg/DG Click here to check corrigendum, if any