Col Raghuraj Singh Retd Vs Union of India & Ors.

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 10/02/2026 at 12:55:37

¶18

Karn Deo Baghel, Adv.

¶19

versus

¶20

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶21

.....Respondents

¶22

Through: Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, Cvinay singh bist adv ms arani Mukherjee adv

¶23

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 07.02.2026

¶24

These petitions assail dis-empanelment orders passed by the Directorate of Resettlement Zone (West) ( hereinafter ‘DRZ’ ), Government of India against the petitioners.

¶25

The facts would indicate that the petitioners were empanelled as proprietors of the Director General of Resettlement ( hereinafter ‘DGR’ ) Security Agency. Subsequently, the Food Corporation of India, Jaipur engaged the petitioners to provide security services from 01.02.2025 to 31.01.2027.

¶26

Thereafter, the DRZ, Zone West, Chandimandir, Chandigarh issued show cause notices in respect of allegations that some of the guards employed by the petitioners were found with forged ex-servicemen document. Being dissatisfied with the petitioners’ reply to the same, the DRZ issued the impugned dis-empanelment orders.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that impugned orders have been issued without the approval of DGR and without affording any opportunity of

¶28

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 10/02/2026 at 12:55:37

¶29

hearing to the petitioners. The impugned orders also direct the Food Corporation of India, Jaipur to terminate their contracts.

¶30

It is, thus, seen that the impugned orders have been issued from Chandigarh, and their effect is being felt in Jaipur. The only reason to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, is presumably on the ground that the appeal is pending before the DGR – which is the Authority, who empanelled the petitioners, is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Additionally, it is also contended that the policy of the DGR, has not been adhered to by the respondent-Authority at Chandigarh. 7. The Court is, however, of the opinion that the cause of action arose not out of the empanelment of the petitioners by the DGR, but out of their dis-empanelment by the DRZ, Chandimandir, Chandigarh. The effect of the orders is in Jaipur, where the petitioners were employed. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court finds that by virtue of one of the respondents being within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and pendency of the appeal, a part of cause of action may have arisen, however, the same should not be the sole determinative factor to entertain the writ petitions when the material, integral and substantial cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. ,¹ has examined the aspect of maintainability of petitions where the cause of action arise within the jurisdiction of different High Courts, and has held as under:

¶31

“Forum conveniens

¶32

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of

¶33

1 (2004) 6 SCC 254.

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 10/02/2026 at 12:55:37

¶36

cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney [AIR 1941 Cal 670 : ILR (1941) 1 Cal 490] , Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal [(1945) 49 CWN 357 : AIR 1949 Cal 495] , Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. Jharia Talkies & Cold Storage (P) Ltd. [1997 CWN 122] , S.S. Jain & Co. v. Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445] and New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1994 Del 126] .]”

¶37

Accordingly, the instant petitions, along with pending applications, stand dismissed.

¶38

However, having considered the wider ramifications that may arise out of the impugned orders, the Court deems it appropriate to protect the rights and interest of the petitioners for a period of seven (7) days from today.

¶39

The petitioners undertake that they will not claim any equity on the basis of the aforesaid arrangement. Accordingly, the status quo, as of today, with respect to the petitioners’ status shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) days.

¶40

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶41

FEBRUARY 7, 2026 aks/amg

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

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 10/02/2026 at 12:55:37

Col Raghuraj Singh Retd v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col Raghuraj Singh Retd v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Pahwa Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Mr Markand Adhikari Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

Anjana Kiritkumar Bachu Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(1)(2) New Delhi and Anr.

O.P.Saxena Thr. Lr'S Shail Sax Vs UOI & Ors.

Swadesh Kumar Vs Registrar Delhi Cooperative Societies & Ors.

Jntl Consumer Health India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Airport Authority of India

M/S Nkg Infrastructure Ltd. through Its Managing Director Vs Airport Authority of India (Aai) through Dgm/Jt. Gm Engg. (C) Safdarjung Airport, Engineer-in-Charge

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Rajeshwari Realty Private Limited Vs Nbcc (India) Limited & Anr.

Col Anil Khajuria Retd Vs Union of India & Ors.