Dismissed

Ved Prakash v. Chief General Manager & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4595/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition attempting to seek reliefs already barred by an order of the Allahabad High Court which denied liberty to file a fresh petition. The court held that filing the petition without disclosing the pending bar order constituted gross suppression of material facts and forum shopping.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000 to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Ved Prakash Vs Chief General Manager & Anr. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~75

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4595/2025 and CM APPLs.21282-21283/2025 VED PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shaad Anwar, Mr. A.R. Khan, Mr. Morh Mukut P. Yadav, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC with Mr. Akshit Kapur, Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates for SBI.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

¶8

O R D E R 09.04.2025

¶9

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following reliefs:

¶10

“A. Issue writ order direction under article 226 of constitution of India in the nature of certiorari to quash order dated 17.03.2011, passed by disciplinary authority and order dated 01.09.2011, passed by appellate authority in the interest of justice.

¶11

B. Issue a writ order direction under article 226 of constitution of India in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay entire retirement benefits including gratuity, provident funds and all allowances difference of salary from the date of suspension till superannuation and potentially pension benefits in the interest of justice.”

¶12

It is stated in the writ petition that the disciplinary proceedings were already challenged by the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72067/2011. An order of the

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

W.P.(C) 4595/2025

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. 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 15/04/2025 at 16:00:41

¶16

Allahabad High Court dated 12.08.2024 has been annexed to the present writ petition, which reads as follows:

¶17

“Heard Shri Chandan Bhagat, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶18

Shri Chandan Bhagat, has filed this withdrawal application of the petitioner seeking to withdraw the present petition.

¶19

In view of the. above, the withdrawal application is allowed.

¶20

Writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn.

¶21

Accordingly the petition is consigned to record. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶22

There is no liberty to file writ petition on same ground or with same prayer.”

¶23

Unfortunately, neither the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Allahabad High Court, nor the application for withdrawal filed by him thereafter, have been annexed to the present writ petition. The hearing was therefore passed-over to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the original writ petition and the withdrawal application. The documents have been produced on second call and are taken on record.

¶24

The prayers in the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court were directed against the order of the disciplinary authority dated 17.03.2011 and the appellate authority dated 01.09.2011. These are the very orders which are mentioned in prayer ‘A’ of this writ petition also.

¶25

In the application for withdrawal of the writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court, no liberty was sought to file another writ petition on the same cause of action. The order dated 12.08.2024, quoted above makes it clear that no such liberty was granted; in fact, it was expressly declined.

¶26

What makes matter even worse is that the writ petitioner has, on

Page 2 of 4

W.P.(C) 4595/2025

11.09.2024, filed an application before the Allahabad High Court for modification of the order dated 12.08.2024. A copy of the said application has also been handed up in Court and is taken on record. The prayer in the said application is as follows:

¶31

“It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and modify the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72067 of 2011 (Ved Prakash Vs. Deputy General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Garh Road, Meerut and others) by adding the given liberty to the petitioner for filing the fresh writ petition, otherwise the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury .”

¶32

Emphasis supplied

¶33

In the affidavit accompanying the application, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Appeal No. 274/2017, by order dated 17.08.2023, and liberty has been sought for filing of a fresh writ petition. I am informed by learned counsel for the parties that the application for modification has not yet been listed before the Allahabad High Court.

¶34

In the present writ petition, the application for modification has not been mentioned at all, although the writ petition was affirmed on 01.04.2025 whereas the modification application bears the date of 11.09.2024. It is evident from the above that the petitioner was correctly advised that no fresh writ petition is maintainable in the teeth of the order dated 12.08.2024. He has, therefore, approached the appropriate Court for modification of that order, but has filed the present writ petition for the same relief without disclosing that his application remains pending in the Allahabad High Court. This conduct is tantamount to a gross suppression of material facts, and also indicates an attempt at forum shopping on the

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

W.P.(C) 4595/2025

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 15/04/2025 at 16:00:41

¶39

part of the petitioner.

¶40

A person, who seeks extraordinary constitutional remedies available under Article 226 of the Constitution, must satisfy all requirements of an action in equity. The Supreme Court in K. Jayaram & Others v. Bangalore Development Authority & Others , [(2022) 12 SCC 815] has made it clear that no writ petition should be entertained if material facts have been suppressed.

¶41

The writ petition, alongwith the pending applications, is, therefore, dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee [“DHCLSC”] [ UCO Bank, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi, Account No. 15530110008386, IFSC Code- UCBA0001553 ] within a period of four weeks from today.

¶42

A copy of this order be furnished to the Secretary, DHCLSC.

¶43

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶44

APRIL 9, 2025 “Bhupi/JM”/

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

W.P.(C) 4595/2025

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

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 15/04/2025 at 16:00:41

Ved Prakash v. Chief General Manager & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash v. Chief General Manager & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Kr Shiva Vs Government of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

New Era Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Anr.

Sridhar Patra Vs Lokpal of India

Alka Sahni Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Chand Mehra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vinay Mittal & Anr. Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Aarti Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Association of Gazetted Officer Technical Education Delhi through Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the Secretary Department of Training and Technical Education and Ors.

Ajay Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jalbir Singh & Ors. Vs Adm (La) South West & Ors.

Dr Dhaval Govindbhai Makwana Vs National Institute of Ayurveda & Ors.

Smt. Azad Kaur & Ors. Vs Tehsildar / Consolidation Officer

Naveen Chandra Joshi Vs the Institution for the Blind ( Andh Vidyalaya) and Ors.