Disposed¶21

Ram Chander v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/13146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court disposes of writ petition seeking mandamus to GNCTD respondents to investigate criminality of actions against a former MLA and to initiate disciplinary action against officials in terms of Lt. Governor's order dated 13.04.2016; MLA not made party, affected parties owed hearing; Article 226 - High Court cannot examine veracity of allegations at first instance; remedy via complaint to court of competent jurisdiction; issues left open to appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The veracity of the submissions made in the petition cannot be fully examined unless the effected (affected) parties are extended an opportunity of hearing; notably, the concerned MLA has not been made a party to the writ petition. ¶16

Ram Chander Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to investigate the criminality of the actions against the MLA (or any other government or public person) and initiate action under relevant provisions of law. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶16

Key takeaways

If the petitioner feels that any individual has committed an offence, the remedy lies elsewhere: the petitioner may file a complaint to the court of competent jurisdiction.ratio¶19
The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot at the first instance examine the veracity of all those allegations.ratio¶20
Leaving all those issues open to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum, the court disposed of the instant petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) 13146/2023 (High Court of Delhi, decided 13.04.2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav): Petitioner Ram Chander sought (A) a writ of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to investigate the criminality of actions against the then MLA (or any other government/public person) and initiate action under relevant provisions of law, and (B) a direction to Respondent No. 1 to take disciplinary action against concerned officials in terms of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor's order dated 13.04.2016. The court observed that the concerned MLA had not been made a party to the petition and that the veracity of the submissions could not be fully examined without extending an opportunity of hearing to the effected parties. It held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot at the first instance examine the veracity of such allegations, and that if the petitioner believes any individual has committed an offence, the remedy lies in filing a complaint before a court of competent jurisdiction. Leaving all issues open for adjudication by the appropriate forum, the court disposed of the petition without granting the sought reliefs.

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13146/2023

¶4

RAM CHANDER .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

GOVT. OF SHT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Kartik Sharma, Advocate for R-1, 3, 4 and 5.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶11

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶12

“A. Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to investigate the matter qua the criminality of the actions against the MLA or any other government or public person and initiate the action under relevant provisions of Law.

¶13

B. Issue the direction to respondent NO. 1 to take the disciplinary actions against the concerned officials in terms of the order by Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor dated 13.04.2016.

¶14

C. Pass any other orders which this court may deem fit and proper.”

¶15

The petitioner seeks compliance of certain directions / observations made by the Lieutenant Governor in his order dated 13.04.2016. It appears that certain misconduct and allegations are made against the then Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The concerned MLA has not been made party to the instant writ petition.

¶16

The veracity of the submissions made in the petition cannot be fully examined unless, the effected parties are extended an opportunity of hearing.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 16/04/2026 at 13:35:37

¶19

If the petitioner feels that any of the individual has committed any offence, the remedy would lie elsewhere. The petitioner can file complaint to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶20

The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot at the first instance examine the veracity of all those allegations.

¶21

Leaving all those issues open to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶22

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶23

APRIL 13, 2026/Sh

¶24

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 16/04/2026 at 13:35:37

Ram Chander v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Chander v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vaibbhav Rawal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Shashi Bhushan Badoni & Anr. Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kuamr Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babu Lal Koli Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Devendra Singh Vs the Bses & Ors.

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Public Works Department, Delhi & Anr.

Domino'S Pizza (Jubilant Food Works Ltd) (Dwarka Mor) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Panchsheel Enclave Resident Welfare Association Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mica Industries Ltd. Vs Canbank Factors Ltd. & Anr.

Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta