Dismissed

Resham Singh Alias Pappu & Ors. v. the Competent Authority, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators

Delhi HC4 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/4586/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge order dismissing a public interest litigation petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The petition was adjourned multiple times for non-compliance by the petitioners. Due to insufficient address and lack of appearance, service of default notice could not be effected. The court finally dismissed the current petition in default for non-prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

Resham Singh Alias Pappu & Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4586/2016&CM APPL. 19094/2016

¶4

RESHAM SINGH ALIAS PAPPU & ORS .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: None.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC, Mr. Sujeet Kumar Choudhary, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 04.08.2025

¶11

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶12

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers: -

¶13

“(a) Setting aside the final judgment and order dated 06.05.2015 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, New Delhi, in FPA-ND-35/DLI/2012 titled as Resham Singh & Ors Vs. The Competent Authority;

¶14

(b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶15

None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶16

Learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025

¶17

had observed as under: -

¶18

“2. This Court had on 08.10.2024 directed the Petitioners to take instructions and recorded the following:

¶19

“1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner’s

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 15:36:29

¶22

Appeal bearing no. CRA-S-2432-SB-2007 is still pending before the High Court judicature at Punjab and Haryana. 2. A query has been put to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as to how the aforesaid Appeal would have a bearing on the present Petition, for which he requests for an adjournment. Let the Petitioner place on record an Affidavit with respect to the submissions made. 3. At his request, list on 20.01.2025. 4. In the meantime, parties shall file their respective written synopsis, not exceeding three pages each, at least one week before the next date of hearing, along with the compilation of judgments, if any, they wish to rely upon. 4.1 All judgments sought to be relied upon shall be filed with an index which also sets out the relevant paragraph numbers and the proposition of law that it sets forth.”

¶23

Thereafter, despite the matter was listed before the Court on 25.01.2025 and 07.02.2025, the order dated 08.10.2024 has not been complied with by the Petitioners.

¶24

The report of the Registry is that the default Notice is yet to be served on the Petitioners.

¶25

The Registry is directed to expedite the service and file a report within a period of one week.”

¶26

On 17.03.2025, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the Court observed as under: -

¶27

“1. Present none for the petitioners.

¶28

As per the office noting, the default notice issued to the petitioners in light of the fact that their counsel had been discharged, has remained unserved for insufficient address.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent states that petitioners’ appeal continues to be pending before the High Court of Judicature at Punjab & Haryana.

¶30

A perusal of the application filed by the petitioners’ counsel seeking discharge shows that the same was filed as the counsel was unable to contact the petitioners at the known address. The application is accompanied by undelivered letters.

¶31

Adverse orders are deferred for today.

¶32

Renotify on 04.08.2025.”

¶33

Today, again there is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners.

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 15:36:29

¶36

As noted hereinabove, there has been no appearance on behalf of the petitioners for the last 2 dates of hearing i.e. 06.03.2025 and 17.03.2025. Default notice could not be served on account of insufficient address.

¶37

It is further noted that the application filed by the petitioner’s counsel seeking discharge also reflected that the said counsel was unable to contact the petitioners because of insufficient address.

¶38

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of.

¶39

Pending applications if any also stand disposed of.

¶40

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

¶41

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶42

AUGUST 4, 2025/ kr/yg

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/08/2025 at 15:36:29

Resham Singh Alias Pappu & Ors. v. the Competent Authority, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resham Singh Alias Pappu & Ors. v. the Competent Authority, Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunshine Anand Swain Vs University Grant Commission & Anr.

Gaurav Punj Vs the New Delhi Municipal Council

Kuldeep Kumar Mittal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Vikash Vs Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Swati Saista Vs the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pheran Singh Yadav & Anr. Vs MCD

Demas Developers Private Limited Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Lecoanet Hemant India Pvt. Ltd. (Successor / Transferee Company of Ip Support Services (India) Pvt. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1), Delhi

M/S Bali Towers Private Limited Vs Sonalika Jiwani IAS

Nutan Tyagi Vs State

Lokesh Kumar Malhotra Vs Mitsubishi Corporation India Private Limited & Anr.

Asha Sharma & Anr. Vs State & Ors.

Sharib Khan Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

Sanoj Das & Ors. Vs Authority Under Minimum Wages Act and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) & Ors.