Partly allowed¶7

Iqbal Singh v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC23 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/11307/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 11307/2019; Iqbal Singh v. Union of India and Anr.; High Court of Delhi; decided 23.03.2026 (Kshetarpal & Mahajan JJ.); Article 226/227; challenge to CAT Principal Bench final order 22.04.2019 in M.A. 1375/2019 (O.A. 1693/2013); expunction of Tribunal remarks calling petitioner 'chronic and habitual litigant'; waiver of cost Rs. 50,000 on petitioner and further cost Rs. 50,000 on Government (Tribunal order 10.04.2018); petition partly allowed and disposed; quietus to litigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition partly allowed and disposed of: uncharitable remarks made against the Petitioner in the impugned order expunged; the Rs. 50,000 cost imposed on the Petitioner in the impugned order waived; the further Rs. 50,000 cost imposed on the Government by Tribunal order dated 10.04.2018 also waived. ¶7

Iqbal Singh Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the uncharitable comments of the Tribunal against the Petitioner in the impugned order, to the effect that he is a chronic and habitual litigant, should be expunged. +1 more

¶2(i)

Court's answer

The uncharitable remarks made against the Petitioner in the impugned order shall stand expunged.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon the Petitioner in the impugned order shall stand waived.

¶7

Key takeaways

The further cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed upon the Government by the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.04.2018 shall also stand waived.ratio¶7
While deciding court cases, the Court is required to show restraint from making any uncharitable remarks against litigants.obiter¶6
The order was passed in the interest of justice in order to give quietus to the litigation, the Respondent having raised no objection to the limited prayer.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.), W.P.(C) 11307/2019, decided 23.03.2026: Writ petition by IQBAL SINGH under Article 226/227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the final order dated 22.04.2019 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in M.A. No. 1375/2019 filed in O.A. No. 1693/2013. Petitioner had earlier filed three OAs (Nos. 442/2009, 1693/2013 and 2180/2013), all allowed, besides a Contempt Petition and two miscellaneous applications. Surviving grievances confined to (i) the Tribunal's uncharitable comments branding the Petitioner a chronic and habitual litigant and (ii) the cost imposed on dismissing the Miscellaneous Application. As the Respondent was not objecting to the limited prayer, and holding that courts must show restraint from uncharitable remarks against litigants, the Court partly allowed the petition: the remarks shall stand expunged; the Rs. 50,000 cost imposed on the Petitioner and the further Rs. 50,000 cost imposed on the Government by Tribunal order dated 10.04.2018 shall stand waived; petition disposed of in the interest of justice to give quietus to the litigation.

¶1

$~26

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11307/2019 IQBAL SINGH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Robin George with Mr. Yogesh Bhatt, Advs. through V.C.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Goyal (CGSPC) with Mr. Aryan Aggarwal, Adv. through V.C.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

¶8

O R D E R % 23.03.2026

¶9

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the final order dated 22.04.2019, (hereafter ‘ impugned order ’) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereafter ‘ Tribunal ’) in M.A. No. 1375/2019 filed in O.A. No. 1693/2013.

¶10

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the only surviving grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to the following:

¶11

i. Uncharitable comments of the learned Tribunal against the Petitioner in the impugned order, to the effect that the Petitioner is a chronic and habitual litigant; and

¶12

ii. Cost imposed upon the Petitioner by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the Miscellaneous Application.

¶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 25/03/2026 at 13:38:38

¶15

Learned counsel representing the Respondent submits that these two aspects are between the Court and the Petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has filed three Original Applications, namely, O.A. No.442/2009, O.A. No.1693/2013 & O.A. No.2180/2013, which were allowed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted that the Petitioner had also filed a Contempt Petition and two miscellaneous applications. Hence, it was not appropriate for the learned Tribunal to pass uncharitable remarks against the Petitioner.

¶17

This Court has considered the submissions. 6. While deciding Court cases, the Court is required to show restrain from making any uncharitable remarks against litigants.

¶18

In any case, the Respondent is not objecting to the limited prayer made by the Petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed and the uncharitable remarks made against the Petitioner shall stand expunged. The cost of ₹50,000/- as imposed upon the Petitioner in the impugned order shall stand waived. Another cost of ₹50,000/was imposed upon the Government by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.2018, the same shall also stand waived.

¶19

This order has been passed in the interest of justice in order to give quietus to the litigation.

¶20

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶22

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶23

MARCH 23, 2026 “SK”

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 25/03/2026 at 13:38:38

Iqbal Singh v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Singh v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Bijender Singh and Ors.

Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Rimpy Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jasbir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Parveen Kohli @ Raju Kohli Vs Lieutenant Governor of Delhi

The Cherian Foundation Vs Union of India

Chander Shekhar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Kailash Chandra Meena & Anr. Vs Chief Secretary,Delhi Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. Vs Bijender Singh and Ors.

Rimpy Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Vs Manisha

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. of Nctd through the Chief Seceretary & Ors.

Rachna Goel Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner & Ors.

M/S Rohit Enterprises through Its Proprietor Sh. Rohit Gupta Vs Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain