Dismissed¶¶18

Surender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/16779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surender Singh v Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 16779/2025 & CM APPL. 68923/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 06.11.2025 by C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. Oral order: writ petition (CRPF-related) dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-institute; concealment of facts found in non-disclosure of petitioner's letter dated 6 March 2025 revealing parallel pending writ petition WP (C) 16588/2024 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana; lenient view adopted instead of dismissal; question of approaching different High Courts for different grievances expressly left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn, with leave and liberty to the petitioner to re-institute the writ petition after placing the letter dated 6 March 2025 and any other relevant documents on record. ¶¶18

Surender Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition suffered from concealment of facts owing to non-placement on record of the petitioner's letter dated 6 March 2025 disclosing that his grievance was sub judice before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in WP (C) 16588/2024, and whether the petition ought to be dismissed on that ground. +1 more

¶¶10

Court's answer

The submission that the disclosure letter of 6 March 2025 was written by a person unschooled in law did not appeal to the Court, as the letter was written by the petitioner himself, who holds the post of Commandant in the CRPF.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Although the writ petition could have been dismissed for concealment of facts, the Court took a lenient view and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to re-institute it after placing the letter dated 6 March 2025, and any other relevant documents, on record.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not applied its mind to, and left open, the question whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach one High Court in respect of one grievance and another High Court in respect of another grievance; that aspect would be examined only if a separate writ petition is instituted.obiter¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Division Bench: C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.) — W.P.(C) 16779/2025 — dismissed as withdrawn with liberty. The respondents drew the Court's attention to the petitioner's own letter dated 6 March 2025 to the Inspector General, Rajasthan Sector-cum-Chairperson, ICC, stating that his grievance was sub judice before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in WP (C) 16588/2024 (Surender Singh v UOI & Ors.), a document not placed on record, constituting concealment of facts. Counsel's plea that the letter was written by a layperson was rejected, the petitioner being a Commandant in the CRPF. Though liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment, the petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to re-institute after placing the letter and other relevant documents on record. The Court expressly left open, for future consideration if a fresh petition is filed, whether the petitioner may pursue one grievance before one High Court and another grievance before another.

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16779/2025 & CM APPL. 68923/2025 SURENDER SINGH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Dr. S.S. Hooda, Adv. versus

¶5

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advs. Mr. Ajaypal, Law Officer CRPF

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL)

¶8

% 06.11.2025

¶9

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶10

1. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to letter dated 6 March 2025, written by the petitioner to Dr. Archana Shivhare, IPS, Inspector General, Rajasthan Sector-cum-Chairperson, ICC, specifically stating that the grievance of the petitioner is sub judice before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in WP (C) 16588/2024 (Surender Singh v UOI & Ors.). He points out that this document has not been placed on record and that, therefore, the petition suffers from concealment of facts.

¶11

2. To a query from the Court in that regard, Dr. Hooda submits that the grievance in that writ petition is different and that the aforesaid letter has been written by a person unschooled in law.

¶12

Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 16779/2025 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:07.11.2025 18:30:06

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

3. This argument does not appeal to us, as the letter has been written by the petitioner himself, who holds the post of Commandant in the CRPF.

¶15

4. We, however, are for the present are inclined to take a lenient view regarding the non-inclusion of any reference to the proceedings before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the present writ petition.

¶16

5. While this writ petition could have been dismissed on that ground, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-institute the writ petition after placing the aforesaid document on record as well as any other document which may be relevant to the case.

¶17

6. We make it clear that we have not applied our mind as to whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach one High Court in respect of one grievance and another High Court in respect of another grievance. That is an aspect which we would examine after a separate writ petition is instituted, if at all.

¶18

7. With leave and liberty as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶20

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

¶21

NOVEMBER 6, 2025 /rjd

¶22

Signature Not Ver ified

¶23

Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 16779/2025 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:07.11.2025 18:30:06

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Surender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs Ruksana & Anr.

Azad Market Rwa (Regd) Vs MCD and Others

Bal Kishan and Ors. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.

Mohd. Zubair Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner of Customs

Sukh Dev Yadav Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.

Sanjogita Agarwal and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Dr Sreenivas Madireddy Vs Maulana Azad Medical College and Ors.

Nutrivative Foods Private Limited Vs B.L. Agro Industries Limited

Utsav Tomar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs 685219 Wo Yashpal Singh Retd

Vijay Rajak Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kalu Ram Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rahul Vs Union of India and Ors.