Satya Prakash Ravidas v. State NCT of Delhi

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for tracing, rescuing and liberating one Sh. Atma Ram.

2. According to the petitioner, Sh. Atma Ram was an accountant and Bal Brahmchari and is, allegedly, missing from the premises of Raj Vidya Kender, Chhatarpur, where he used to work.

3. During course of the arguments, when asked, petitioner submitted that he met said Sh. Atma Ram, lastly, in the year 1987 and that he had no contact with him since 1988. Despite persistently asking about the reason behind belatedly filing of the present petition, no explanation, much less a plausible one, could be offered by him.

4. When this petition was taken up on 04.08.2025, he was directed to file W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025 2 a fresh affidavit disclosing about his association with Sh. Atma Ram and was also asked to divulge about the other complaints/litigations, which might have been pursued by him in relation to Sh. Atma Ram. In compliance thereof, he has filed an affidavit in which he has deposed that he was, directly and professionally, associated with Sh. Atma Ram in his capacity as his colleague in Raj Vidya Kender where Sh. Atma Ram was serving as an Accountant. According to him, Sh. Atma Ram was the key custodian of financial records of Ashram of said Society where he worked till the year 1988 and had been missing since then.

5. A Status Report has already been filed by the Respondent-State and as per such report, the concerned police authorities contacted Raj Vidya Kender and as per the reply given by them, one Sh. Atma Ram did join them as an Accountant in the year 1980 but he, of his own free-will left them in the year

1988. According to them, there was no further information about him. It was also revealed by them that in the year 2023 also, the petitioner herein had filed a similar complaint against them in which he had rather proclaimed that death of Sh. Atma Ram was a riddle. They also divulged that the petitioner herein was never ever member of their Ashram.

6. It seems that petitioner has some grievance with respect to the functioning of the Ashram of Raj Vidya Kender and has attempted to portray a different picture in the present petition. It is really beyond comprehension to understand as to why, if at all, said Sh. Atma Ram was missing since 1988, the petitioner did not take any action immediately, then and there.

7. During course of the arguments, the petitioner though contended that he had taken some action in the year 2015 but no such communication has seen light of the day. Moreover, as per Status Report, the petitioner had W.P.(CRL) 2399/2025 3 lodged one complaint in the year 2023 with Police Station Maidan Garhi in relation to same Sh. Atma Ram but for the reasons best known to him, such fact has not even been divulged by him in the present petition.

8. Undoubtedly, the delay factor alone would not come in the way of the Court when it comes to someone’s life and liberty but quite clearly, the petitioner has given a different colour altogether to his petition. He seems to have apprehension that certain illegal activities are being carried out by the Ashram and the resources and assets of the Ashram are being mis-utilized. He also apprehends that some anti-social elements have, unlawfully, occupied the Ashram and its properties and they continue to exploit the assets of the Ashram for their personal gains.

9. Fact, however, remains that these aspects cannot be made subject matter of the writ petition of the present nature and, therefore, finding no merit and substance in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J MANOJ JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2025