Full Judgment Text
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5656/2024
Date of Decision : 11.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari with Mr.
Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocates along
with petitioner-in-person.
versus
REGISTRAR DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL &
ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr.
Kumar Kartikey, Mr. Dhananjay
Singh & Mr. Chanakya Kene,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for the following relief:
“ (a) Allow the present petition;
(b) issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, order(s) or direction(s) to
the respondents to take appropriate steps for the purpose of getting
“List of nominated counsel” alongwith their Email address, Mobile
Number and Address for the purpose of Advance Service and Service
in the due course, notified/uploaded in the website of the DRT/DRATs
pertaining to the matters filed before DRTs within stipulated period as
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.02.2026
19:57:36
fixed by this Hon’ble Court; and/or alternatively,
(c) Appropriate directions be issued to respondent No.1 to exercise
power under section 17(1) of the DRT Act 1993 and take appropriate
steps for the purpose of getting “List of nominated counsel” alongwith
their Email address, Mobile Number and Address for the purpose of
Advance Service and Service in the due course, notified/uploaded in
the website of the DRT/DRATs pertaining to the matters filed before
DRTs within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon’ble Court
alongwith their Email address, Mobile Number and Address for the
purpose of Advance Service and Service in the due course. ”
2. The nature of the directions sought for relates to the administrative
functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“ DRT ”) and the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal (“ DRAT ”). The Court vide its order dated 06.05.2025
has also noted certain suggestions made by the petitioner in relation to the
functioning of the DRTs and DRATs.
3. It is, however, seen that the petitioner has not, in the first instance
approached the DRTs/DRATs, for the issuance of appropriate directions,
sought for in the instant writ. There is no, refusal or rejection by the
concerned authorities, the review of which, is to be undertaken in the present
writ petition. The Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.
1
and Ors. v. Union of India , declared that as a general rule, a direction in
the nature of a mandamus , ought not to be granted, unless the petitioner had
previously made a demand before the competent authorities and the same
had been refused. The material portion of the judgement reads as under:
“ 24. …Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the
nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a
mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged
breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to
certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of
mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's
1
(1974) 2 SCC 630.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.02.2026
19:57:36
Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 13, p. 106):
“As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party
complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so
that he had the means of considering whether or not he should
comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct
demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to
enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.”
25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no
ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or
direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. These appeals must be and
are, hereby, dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no
order as to costs.
4. In a related context, the Supreme Court in Census Commr. v. R.
2
Krishnamurthy , held that Courts ought not to utilise the writ of mandamus
to direct framing of policy. The material portion of the said decision reads as
under:
| “ | 25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy | |
|---|---|---|
| in a particular manner are absolutely different….It is not within the domain of the | ||
| court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain | ||
| creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as | ||
| unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in | ||
| certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the | ||
| courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way | ||
| of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering | ||
| what we have stated in the beginning. The courts are required to understand the policy | ||
| decisions framed by the executive. If a policy decision or a notification is arbitrary, it | ||
| may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the notification was not | ||
| under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how | ||
| the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be | ||
| carried out by adding certain aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing | ||
| a policy in a specific manner.” |
above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner at the first instance
must approach the Registrar of the concerned DRTs/DRATs. The concerned
Registrar, in turn shall deal with the said grievance and take it to its logical
conclusion with due approval from the competent authority. If the grievance
2
(2015) 2 SCC 796.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.02.2026
19:57:36
of the petitioner is not fully mitigated within a reasonable period of time, the
petitioner, thereafter, shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in
accordance with law.
6. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 11, 2026
tr/ksr.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:18.02.2026
19:57:36