Disposed¶5

Tarun Rohatgi v. Delhi Development Authority

Delhi HC15 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/16253/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tarun Rohatgi v. Delhi Development Authority; High Court of Delhi; W.P.(C) 16253/2025; Justice Jasmeet Singh; order dated 15.01.2026; writ petition under Article 226 Constitution of India; permanent membership of DDA sports complex; waiting list for permanent membership under Tenure Category; previous tenure membership; seniority; writ petition treated as representation; to be decided in accordance with rules and regulations; disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondent (DDA) to treat the petition as a representation, decide it in accordance with its rules and regulations, take into account the petitioner's previous tenure membership and, if found eligible, place him on the waiting list as per his seniority. ¶5

Tarun Rohatgi Vs Delhi Development Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be awarded permanent membership of the Respondent Sports Complex, or alternatively be considered in the waiting list for permanent membership under the Tenure Category taking into account all his previous tenure memberships.

¶1

Court's answer

It is directed that while deciding the aforesaid representation (the respondent having undertaken to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide it in accordance with its rules and regulations), the respondent shall also take into account the petitioner's previous tenure membership and, if found eligible, shall put him on the waiting list as per the petitioner's seniority.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tarun Rohatgi v. Delhi Development Authority, W.P.(C) 16253/2025 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, order dated 15.01.2026, Jasmeet Singh, J.) — Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking (a) a writ/order/direction to the Respondent Sports Complex to award permanent membership to the petitioner, and (b) alternately, consideration in the waiting list for permanent membership under the Tenure Category after considering all previous tenure memberships. After counsel for the petitioner submitted that, per seniority and his old tenure, the petitioner may be placed on the waiting list for permanent membership under the Tenure Category, Ms. Sen, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, undertook to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide it in accordance with the respondent's rules and regulations. The court directed that, in deciding the representation, the respondent shall take into account the petitioner's previous tenure membership and, if found eligible, place him on the waiting list as per his seniority. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16253/2025

¶4

TARUN ROHATGI

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel for DDA with Ms. Aditi Singh, Mr. Karan Mishra, Advs.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 15.01.2026

¶11

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

¶12

“a). issue a suitable writ, order or direction to the Respondent Sports Complex to award the permanent membership to the petitioner

¶13

b). and in alternate direct the Respondent to consider the petitioner in the waiting list for the permanent membership under the Tenure Category after considering all the previous tenure membership…”

¶14

After some arguments, Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that as per the seniority and considering his old tenure of

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 20/01/2026 at 12:55:05

¶17

membership, the petitioner may be put on the waiting list the permanent membership under the Tenure Category.

¶18

Ms. Sen, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, states that the respondent will treat the present writ petition as a representation and will decide the same in accordance with the rules and regulations.

¶19

In view of the above, it is directed that while deciding the aforesaid representation, the respondent shall also take into account the petitioner’s previous tenure membership and if found eligible, shall be put on the waiting list as per the petitioner’s seniority.

¶20

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶22

JANUARY 15, 2026/sp

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 20/01/2026 at 12:55:05

Tarun Rohatgi v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Rohatgi v. Delhi Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Kajal and Anrs. Vs the Controller (Cd) DM S/W District and Anr.

M/S Amazon Distributors (P) Ltd. Vs Ajay Tiwari

M/S Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd. Vs Ram Phool

Goldtex Furnishing Indutries Vs UOI & Ors.

Sohan Lal Hans Vs Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors.

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs Commissioner of Customs

Srishti Kalra Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (Ggsipu) & Ors.

Azeem Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Its Hony Director Games and Sports Department Jmi New Delhi 110025 & O

Vasu Agarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Bahl Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ajay Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs Ministry of Urban Development & Anr.

Lokesh Sharma Vs University of Delhi & Anr.