Saqib Husain vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 11.08.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25.08.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010276902026
+ W.P.(C) 8808/2026
SAQIB HUSAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kaif Hasan, Mr. Vaibhav
Pachauri, Ms. Saaliha Mirza,
Mr. Sabih Mahmood, Mr.
Mohd. Aatif, Mr. Mohammad
Waseem, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sharang Dhulia, CGSC,
Mr. Ankur Tyagi, GP, Mr.
Chetan Jadon, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking
issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ directing respondent no. 2, i.e. the Department of Higher
Education, Ministry of Education [hereafter „ Ministry ‟], to decide
the representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner
seeking appropriate action in respect of alleged forgery, fraud,
W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 1 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10

fabrication and misplacement of financial records at respondent no. 3,
i.e. Aligarh Muslim University [hereafter „ AMU ‟].
2. The petitioner alleges that, on 19.04.2025, an employee of
AMU admitted, under sworn statement, to having prepared and
signed forged cash vouchers amounting to Rs. 9,040/-. Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner submitted a formal complaint dated 21.07.2025
before the Registrar and Chief Vigilance Officer of AMU, followed
by a written complaint dated 27.08.2025 to AMU, seeking inquiry
and appropriate action in respect of the alleged forgery and unjust
enrichment. The petitioner states that, in response to an RTI
application, AMU informed him on 09.09.2025 that the complaint
was under “examination/consideration”. Thereafter, in the first appeal
under the RTI Act, the petitioner was informed on 01.10.2025 that
the relevant financial register was “misplaced and not traceable”. The
petitioner subsequently submitted representations dated 04.11.2025
and 09.03.2026 seeking an inquiry into the alleged fraud and forgery
and appropriate action against the persons responsible.
3. It is further stated that, despite the aforesaid representations, no
effective action was taken by AMU. Consequently, the petitioner
served a legal notice dated 16.03.2026 upon AMU and the concerned
officials and, thereafter, submitted representations dated 24.03.2026
to the Ministry seeking an independent inquiry and audit into the
matter. The petitioner further alleges that, despite the admitted
forgery, one of the employees of AMU against whom allegations
W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 2 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10

were made retired from service on 30.04.2026 without any liability
being fixed, owing to the alleged inaction on the part of AMU. The
grievance of the petitioner is that the representation dated 24.03.2026
submitted before the Ministry remains undecided and no action has
been taken thereon till date.
4. The matter was heard on point of territorial jurisdiction of this
Court to entertain the present petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the present petition is maintainable before this Court as a substantial
part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court. He submits that the immediate grievance of the
petitioner is not against the underlying acts allegedly committed at
AMU, but against the inaction of respondent no. 2, i.e. the Ministry,
in not considering the representation dated 24.03.2026 submitted by
the petitioner seeking an independent inquiry and audit into the
alleged financial irregularities. Since respondent no. 2 is a Central
authority functioning from New Delhi and the aforesaid
representation was addressed to the said authority, its failure to
consider the same constitutes a material part of the cause of action
arising within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted
that, in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of
this Court is attracted where the cause of action arises, wholly or in
part, within its territorial jurisdiction. The mere fact that the
underlying allegations relate to AMU, which is situated outside
W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 3 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10

Delhi, would therefore not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of this
Court, particularly when the relief presently sought is confined to a
direction to respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the pending
representation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 opposes
the present petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He
submits that the entire cause of action, including the alleged forgery,
preparation of the cash vouchers, maintenance of the relevant
financial records and the alleged inaction on the part of AMU, has
arisen at Aligarh. It is submitted that neither the petitioner‟s
underlying grievance nor the substantive dispute has any nexus with
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He further submits that
merely addressing a representation dated 24.03.2026 to respondent
no. 2, which is a Central authority located in New Delhi, cannot by
itself confer territorial jurisdiction upon this Court. The mere location
of the office of an authority or the receipt of a representation within
the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, without any part of the
substantive cause of action arising therein, would not be sufficient to
attract the jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. It is,
therefore, submitted that the petitioner ought to approach the
competent Court having territorial jurisdiction over AMU and the
subject matter of the dispute.
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 4 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10

8. In the opinion of this Court, the prayer made in the present
petition is confined to respondent no. 2/Ministry and seeks a direction
to the said respondent to consider and decide the representation dated
24.03.2026 submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is not, in the
present petition, seeking adjudication by this Court of the allegations
of forgery or financial irregularities at AMU.
9. It is not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is a Ministry of the
Government of India situated in New Delhi and that the
representation dated 24.03.2026 was addressed and submitted to the
said respondent at its office in Delhi. The grievance in the present
petition is, therefore, with regard to the non-consideration of a
representation by an authority situated within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. In these circumstances, this Court is of the
view that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court and the objection raised by respondent no. 2
cannot be sustained.
10. At the same time, this Court makes it clear that it is not
expressing any opinion on the allegations raised by the petitioner
regarding forgery, fraud, fabrication or misplacement of financial
records at AMU.
11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
directed that the representation dated 24.03.2026 shall be considered
by respondent no. 2 in accordance with the applicable rules and
procedure and in accordance with law. Respondent no. 2 shall also
W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 5 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10

examine, within the scope of its powers and jurisdiction, whether any
action is called for on the grievances raised by the petitioner. The
same shall be done within a period of three months from the date.
The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.
12. In above terms, the present petition is disposed of, alongwith
pending application if any.
13. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein with
regard to territorial jurisdiction are confined to the limited relief
sought in the present petition, i.e., consideration and decision of the
representation dated 24.03.2026 by respondent no. 2/Ministry. This
Court has not expressed any opinion, and the question of territorial
jurisdiction is kept open, in relation to any substantive dispute
concerning AMU or any proceedings or action arising out of the
allegations made by the petitioner against AMU.
14. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 25, 2026/zp
T.D.

W.P.(C) 8808/2026 Page 6 of 6


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:01.09.2026
19:51:10