Babu Lal Mitharwal v. Union of India

1. The prayer clause in this writ petition reads thus: “Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorified mandamus and quash Section 22 of the Police Act, 1861(No.5 of 1861) and section 24 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (No.34 of 1978), demanding arduous duty hours of 24 x 7, warranting excess working hours of more than 12 hours of duty, without any guidelines per day, from every police personnel, being ultra vires and being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the light of passage of time and change of lifestyle in terms of human livelihood; b) The issuance of writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writ or issuing directions to the respondent to frame guidelines for Delhi Police personnel's to draw an effective mechanism for fixing 8 hours duty hours and proper break after the long hours duty to maintain their efficiency and good physical and mental health. c) Pass such other writ or writs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just, in the interests of justice.

2. Mr. Gyanant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, concedes the fact that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has superannuated.

3. In that case, no cause of action survives for the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition, as the grievance forming subject matter of the prayers in this writ petition can only be urged by a person who is in service. Mr. Singh concedes the fact that, had the petitioner already been retired before this writ petition was filed, this petition could not have been maintained. Notably, the petition has not been filed as a public interest litigation.

4. In that view of the matter, we do not see why we should continue to retain this writ petition on the board of this court after the petitioner has superannuated.

5. Mr. Singh has also pointed out to us that, by various orders passed by this Court, the scope of this writ petition has been enlarged and that this Court was looking into the ameliorating the conditions of service of Delhi Police, for which an Amicus Curiae was appointed, a report obtained from the learned Amicus Curiae, and further orders passed.

6. While we are not certain as to whether this Court could have thus enhanced the jurisdiction of a writ petition which was filed in personam, if this court were to embark on any such steps, the lis would be in the nature of a public interest litigation. In case the petitioner desires to take up these issues as a public interest litigation, we reserve liberty with him to do so by filing an appropriate petition in that regard which, if and when filed, would have to be placed before the Bench which deals with public interest litigations.

7. The prayers in this writ petition, clearly, do not survive for consideration after superannuation of the petitioner.

8. The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, subject to the caveat in para 6 supra.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. SEPTEMBER 18, 2025