Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 8076/2025 and CM APPLs.35328-35330/2025
NAVEEN VEDI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitin Joshi, Mr. Vaibhav Thaledi, Mr. Harsimran Singh, Mr. Gursimran Singh
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP, Mr Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates
Amit Kumar Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL)
30.05.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT
1. After some hearing, Mr. Joshi points out that his main grievance is that the statutory petition presented by the petitioner dated 24 April 2025 before the Confirming Authority against the decisions dated 9 April 2025 and 22 April 2025 of the Security Force Court, has not been decided on merits by the Confirming Authority, which has merely relegated the petitioner to the GSFC to raise these pleas before the GSFC, by its order dated 20 May 2025.
2. The first prayer in this writ petition is to quash and set aside the order dated 20 May 2025.
3. We have seen the order dated 20 May 2025, forming subject matter of challenge in this petition. We find that Mr. Joshi is correct in his submission that the Confirming Authority has not decided the petition on merits.
4. The Confirming Authority appears to have been of the view that the earlier order dated 29 April 2025 passed by this Court in WP (C) 5519/2025 directed the petitioner to take up all these issues before the GSFC and the Confirming Authority was not required to decide the challenges of the petitioner on merits.
5. We never intended any such outcome when we passed our order dated 29 April 2025. We had noted in that order that the petition before the Confirming Authority was pending and, therefore, had declined to interfere.
6. We had only reserved liberty with the petitioner to take up all pleas before the GSFC. This did not do away with the requirement of the Confirming Authority taking a view on the challenges raised by the petitioner in his Statutory Petition dated 24 April 2025.
7. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to ensure that the Confirming Authority passes a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner’s petition under Section 117 of the BSF Act, within a period of four weeks from today.
8. The order as and when passed, shall be communicated forthwith to the petitioner.
9. Needless to say, should the petitioner continue to remain aggrieved, his remedies in law would remain reserved.
10. We are not inclined, however, to interdict the GSFC proceedings in the interregnum.
11. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.