Bisen Anshul Kumar vs Union Of India And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7786/2026, CM APPL. 37752/2026 & CM APPL.
37753/2026
BISEN ANSHUL KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav and Miss.
Radhika Mohapatra, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raktim Gogoi, CGSC with
Mr. Sanjay Pal, GP, Ms. Akshita Nigam and
Mr. Kanhaiya Singla, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar
Singh, and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for
UPSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
% 29.05.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1
1. The petitioner, who is a candidate belonging to the OBC Non-
Creamy Layer, attempted the UPSC Forest Service Examination,
2022. He did not clear the examination. He approached the Central
2
Administrative Tribunal alleging that the suggested answers to
Questions 88 and 96 of the General Studies Paper-I, as contained in
the official answer key, were incorrect.
1
Other Backward Classes
2
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55
2. For the sake of the record, we may reproduce the said questions
and the suggested answers as under:
Question Official
Answer
Key
Applicant’s
answer
Explanation & Correct answer
88. With reference
to writs issued by
the Courts in India,
consider the
following
statements:
1. Mandamus will
not lie against a
private organisation
unless it is entrusted
with a public duty.
2. Mandamus will
not lie against a
Company even
though it may be a
Government
Company.
3. Any public
minded person can
be a Applicant to
move the Court to
obtain the writ of
Quo Warranto.
Which of the
statements given
above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1,2 and 3
D C The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Federal Bank Ltd. vs Sagar
Thomas and Ors. reported in
(2003) 10 SCC 733 held that as
under:
“18. From the decisions
referred to above, the position
that emerges is that a writ
petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India may be
maintainable against (i) the
State (Government); (ii) an
authority; (iii) a statutory body;
(iv) an instrumentality or
agency of the State; (v) a
company which is financed and
owned by the State; (vi) a
private body run substantially
on State funding; (vii) a private
body discharging public duty or
positive obligation of public
nature; and (viii) a person or a
body under liability to discharge
any function under any statute,
to compel it to perform such a
statutory function.”
That a bare perusal of
aforementioned paragraph
makes it clear that a company
which is financed and owned by
the State is amenable to the writ
jurisdiction and therefore, in
view of the ruling of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court,
therefore the correct answer to
the question is option C.
96. With refence to
foreign-owned e-
D B That the Foreign Direct
investment policy of India
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55
commerce firms
operating in India,
which, of the
following statements
is/are correct?
1. They can. sell
their own goods in
addition to offering
their platforms as
market-places.
2. The degree to
which they can own
big sellers on their
platforms is limited.
Select the correct
answer using the
code given below:
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
prohibits retail trading in any
form through ecommerce for the
companies with FDI engaging
in the activities of multi-brand
retail trading. Multi-brand retail
trading means selling different
products of various brands
through one platform. India has
not allowed FDI in inventory-
driven models of e-commerce.
The inventory model, which
Walmart and Amazon use in the
United States, is where the
goods and services are owned
by an e-commerce firm that
sells directly to retail customers.
The restriction is aimed largely
at protecting India's vast
unorganized retail sector that
does not have the clout to
purchase at scale and offer big
discounts. Further, the
Consumer Protection (E-
Commerce) Rules, 2020 defines
“ecommerce” entity as:
“3. Definitions-
“e-commerce entity” means any
person who owns, operates or
manages digital or electronic
facility or platform for
electronic commerce, but does
not include a seller offering his
goods or services for sale on a
marketplace ecommerce entity”
That the aforementioned further
clarifies that ecommerce entity
does not include a seller
offering his good or services for
sale. Hence, option 1 is
incorrect which rules out
options (a) & (c) of the
concerned answer.
Further, as per the amended FDI
Policy in ecommerce
marketplaces in 2018 to classify
any vendor accounting for more
than 25% of the platform’s total
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55
sales as “controlled” by the
marketplace operator. Further,
as per Press Note No. 3 (2016
series) dated 29.03.2016 issued
by the Ministry of Commerce &
Industry, Department of
Industrial Policy & Promotion it
was ascertained that an e-
commerce entity will not permit
more than 25% of the sales
affected through its marketplace
from one vendor or their group
companies. So, no seller must
exceed 25 per cent of the total
business on any foreign e-
commerce platform. Therefore,
Statement 2 is correct with
leaves with the final answer as
option B.
3. The petitioner’s case was that, while the suggested answer key
suggested option (d) for question 88, the correct option was option (c)
and while the suggested answer key suggested option (d) for question
96, the correct answer, according to the petitioner was option (b).
4. It is settled law that there is no absolute bar on a Court
examining such a contention and that, if the suggested answers as per
the suggested answer keys are patently incorrect, the Court can
interfere.
5. We do not wish to express any opinion on the correctness of the
suggested answers as the Tribunal has not addressed this issue and has
merely dismissed the petition following its own earlier decision in OA
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55
3
3090/2023 and the decisions of the Supreme Court which hold that
there is no absolute right to re-evaluation of examination papers.
6. In our view, the Tribunal has erred in its approach. The
petitioner was not seeking re-evaluation of examination papers. The
petitioner was questioning the correctness of the suggested answers in
the model answer key released by the authorities conducting the
examination.
7. This Court has, in its judgment in Staff Selection Commission
4
v. Shubham Pal & Ors examined the entire case law on this aspect
and held that there is no absolute bar to entertain such a challenge. Of
course, where the matter is arguable, or where the suggested answer in
the answer key is even a plausible answer, the Court would not
interfere. Where, however, the answer is demonstrably unacceptable,
the Court would definitely interfere ex debito justitiae.
8. As the Court has not examined the challenge by the petitioner
on merits, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, we set aside
the impugned order dated 12 December 2025 and remit OA
4567/2024 to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.
9. As this involves the candidature of a candidate for entry into the
Indian Forest Service and the issue is short, we request the Tribunal to
take up this matter on the next date of hearing finally and to take a
view thereon as expeditiously as possible.
3
Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. UPSC
4
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55
10. To expedite matters, we direct the parties to appear before the
Tribunal on 6 July 2026. Neither side would be entitled to seek any
adjournment on the said date.
11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms without
expressing any categorical opinion on the merits of the challenges
raised by the petitioner.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
MAY 29, 2026 /gunn
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7786/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:GUNN
Signing Date:25.06.2026
11:05:55