Disposed¶16

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railways v. Sh R K Mittal

Delhi HC16 Oct 2025LPA/263/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA 263/2025; High Court of Delhi; Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railways (appellant); Sh R K Mittal (respondent); correction of typographical error in Order dated 16.10.2025; Appellant/Respondent transposition in paragraph No.3; representation against inquiry report; direction to consider representation within six weeks; letters patent appeal; corrigendum/administrative order dated 21.11.2025; Balendu Shekhar CGSC; Shanker Raju counsel for Respondent; order to be read conjointly with Order dated 16.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Typographical error in paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025 corrected; corrective Order to be read conjointly with, and supplied alongside certified copies of, the Order dated 16.10.2025. ¶16

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railways Vs Sh R K Mittal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Typographical error in paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025 corrected; corrective Order to be read conjointly with, and supplied alongside certified copies of, the Order dated 16.10.2025.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025 contained a typographical error interchanging 'Appellant' and 'Respondent', requiring correction.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025 contained a typographical error: in its second line 'Appellant' was to be read as 'Respondent' and in its third line 'Respondent' was to be read as 'Appellant'; the Court corrected the paragraph accordingly.

¶15

Key takeaways

As corrected, paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025 records that the Respondent has filed a representation against the inquiry report and directs that it is for the Appellant to consider the representation and take steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks.ratio¶12
The corrective Order is to be read conjointly with the Order dated 16.10.2025, and whenever a certified copy of the Order dated 16.10.2025 is sought, a copy of this corrective Order must also be provided along with it.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad & Vimal Kumar Yadav, JJ.), LPA 263/2025 — Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways v. Sh R K Mittal (order dated 21.11.2025): matter listed on office note to rectify a typographical error in paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025, wherein the words 'Appellant' and 'Respondent' had been transposed. Corrected paragraph reiterates that the Respondent has already filed a representation against the inquiry report and that it is for the Appellant to consider the representation and take steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks. The corrective Order is to be read conjointly with the Order dated 16.10.2025 and a copy must accompany every certified copy thereof. Purely administrative correction order; no statutory provision or precedent engaged; no merits decided.

¶1

$~SB-1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 263/2025

¶4

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC, Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev and Ms. Tanisha Samanta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

SH R K MITTAL .....Respondent Through: CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 21.11.2025

¶10

This matter has been listed today on office note stating that in paragraph No.3 of the Order dated 16.10.2025, there is a typographical error wherein in the 2^nd line the word “Appellant” should be read as “Respondent” and in the 3^rd line the word “Respondent” should be read as “Appellant”.

¶11

The correct paragraph No.3 reads as under:

¶12

“………… Mr. Shanker Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents also states that the Respondent has already filed a representation against the inquiry report. It is now for the Appellant to consider the representation and take steps in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from today. ”

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 28/11/2025 at 15:06:58

¶15

The Order stands corrected accordingly.

¶16

Let this Order be read conjointly with the Order dated 16.10.2025. Whenever, a certified copy of the Order dated 16.10.2025 is sought for, let a copy of this Order be also provided along with the certified copy of the Order dated 16.10.2025.

¶17

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J

¶18

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J

¶19

NOVEMBER 21, 2025 Rahul

¶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 28/11/2025 at 15:06:58

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railways v. Sh R K Mittal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Railways v. Sh R K Mittal

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

Ramanujan College Vs Prof Rasal Singh & Ors.

Naik Sheopal Vs Union of India & Ors.

X & Ors. Vs Prof Rasal Singh & Ors.

Mohd.Nawab Vs State N.C.T. of Delhi

Narinder Kumar Babbar Vs State (C.B.I.)

Jai Chand Vs the State & Anr.