Union Of India & Anr. vs Ratnesh Kumar Mishra & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010411922026
+ W.P.(C) 12724/2026 and CM APPLs.59087-89/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, Sr. Panel
Counsel

versus

RATNESH KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vivek Sinha and Mr. Vivek
Malik, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 02.09.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 14
1
September 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA
1562/2020. There is no whisper of any averment in the writ petition
explaining why the petitioner has approached this Court three years
after the order has been passed. Apparently, when the respondent
initiated contempt proceedings in 2025, the petitioner suddenly woke
up and decided to approach this Court. Even after 2025, nearly a year
has elapsed before this Court has been moved by the present writ
petition.

1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:34:31
W.P.(C) 12724/2026 Page 1 of 4

2
2. The Supreme Court has, in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley
clearly held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Court has to be mindful of delay and latches,
thus :
“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts
obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that the writ
petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words the writ petition
ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches itself. An
applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over
his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep
slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts.
This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or
laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High
Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke
its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his
right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made
subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.”

3. In the absence of any explanation for delay and latches, we
would not be inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. Mr Kshitij Chhabra submits that the delay stands explained by
paras 2(xvi), (xvii) and (xviii) of the present writ petition which,
therefore, we may reproduce thus:
“xvi. That the DoPT on the other hand, advised the Petitioner
department to take up the matter with the Department of
Expenditure for revival of deemed to be abolished posts of
Assistant Director (L) before referring the file to DoPT for further
advice in the matter. Since, the post of Asst. Director (L) was filled
on ad-hoc basis and regularised by the DoPT, the matter was once
again sent for advice of DoPT.

xvii. In the meanwhile, the Respondents initiated contempt
proceedings vide CP No. 312/2025 for the reliefs which were not
prayed for in OA.

The reliefs sought in CP No. 312/2025 are reproduced as under: -

2
(2024) 15 SCC 215
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:34:31
W.P.(C) 12724/2026 Page 2 of 4

PRAYER

In the view of aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most
humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased
to:
1 Initiate Contempt Proceedings against the
Respondents for willful disobedience of order dt.
14.09.2023 in 0.A. No. 1562/2020.

2 To compel the Respondents to implement the order
dated 14.09.2023 passed by Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No.
1562/2020

3 To compel the Respondents to cancel the revised
recruitment rules 2020 as published in official gazette on
22.02.2020 in totality and to scrap the promotion list as
published in gazette on 07/12/2020.

4 Pass any other further/orders as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and
circumstances of the present case and the interest of justice.
Equity."

True copy of CP No. 312/2025 is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-P9.

xviii. That the under the garb of contempt proceedings, the
Respondents are making insincere efforts to compel the Petitioners
to comply with the prayers of the OA which was not allowed by
the Ld. Tribunal. Vide contempt petition, the Respondents have
now gone beyond the scope of reliefs as prayed for in the OA.

True copy of order sheets passed is CP No. 312/2025 is annexed
herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P10.”


5. We do not understand how these paragraphs explain the delay
in filing the present writ petition. They deal with interactions with the
DOPT after the order was passed. They cannot, therefore, constitute
any ground for explaining the delay in moving this Court. Moreover,
even the interaction with the DOPT was in February 2024 which is
two and half years before the present writ petition was filed before this
Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:34:31
W.P.(C) 12724/2026 Page 3 of 4

6. In fact, para 2(xvii) is revealing. The real reason for the
petitioner coming to this Court at this belated stage appears to be
initiation of contempt proceedings by the respondent. Article 226 is
not meant to be a sanctuary against contempt. We reiterate, therefore,
that there is no explanation for the delay in approaching the Court, to
be found in the writ petition.


7. In order to be fair to the petitioner, we suggested to learned
counsel that he could withdraw this writ petition and re-file the writ
petition with a proper explanation for the delay. He is not agreeable to
the suggestion. He instead submits that we may grant liberty to him to
approach the Tribunal by way of a Review Petition.

8. Grant of any such liberty would require us to assume
jurisdiction in this matter. In the absence of any explanation for the
delay in institution of this writ petition, and as Mr. Chhabra refuses to
refile the writ petition with a proper explanation for the delay, we
cannot do so.

9. This writ petition is therefore dismissed in limine on the ground
of delay without entering into merits.



C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/ yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:07.09.2026
18:34:31
W.P.(C) 12724/2026 Page 4 of 4