Disposed¶18

Rajat Kumar v. the Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/1965/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajat Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.; W.P.(C) 1965/2026 (CM APPL. 9579/2026, CM APPL. 9580/2026); High Court of Delhi; decided 11.02.2026; bench V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.; maintainability; territorial jurisdiction; no cause of action in Delhi; Revisional Authority based in Kolkata; Appellate Authority rejected appeal on 22.11.2025; liberty to challenge via available remedies; petition disposed; pending applications infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Copy of the Appellate Authority's order dated 22.11.2025 to be supplied to counsel for the petitioner; petitioner left free to challenge that order through available remedies if any cause survives; pending CM APPL. 9579/2026 and 9580/2026 disposed of as infructuous. ¶18

Rajat Kumar Vs the Union of India & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the Delhi High Court, the respondents contending that no cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Agreeing with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents, the Court held that as no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the petition is not maintainable.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Court further noted, on being informed, that even the Revisional Authority is based in Kolkata, reinforcing the absence of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

¶17

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order dated 22.11.2025 of the Appellate Authority by availing such remedy as is available to him under the rules and in law, if any cause survives.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.), 11.02.2026 - Rajat Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 1965/2026: The CGSC appearing on advance notice contested the petition's maintainability on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and informed the Court that the Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal on 22.11.2025. Agreeing with the respondents, the Court held that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, so the petition was not maintainable; it further noted that the Revisional Authority is based in Kolkata. A copy of the 22.11.2025 order was ordered to be furnished to the petitioner's counsel, who was left at liberty to challenge it through available remedies if any cause survived. The petition was disposed of and the pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

$~66

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1965/2026 CM APPL. 9579/2026 CM APPL. 9580/2026

¶4

RAJAT KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jamnesh Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Garg, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms.Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr.Vishal Ashwani Mehta, Adv Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 11.02.2026 1. Ms Amrita Prakash, learned CGSC for the respondents who appears on advance notice contests the maintainability of the present petition in this Court on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶11

She also states that the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal of the petitioner and rejected the same on 22.11.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has not received the same.

¶12

Let a copy of the order dated 22.11.2025, be given to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶13

The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the said order by availing such remedy as available to him under the rules and in law, if any cause survives.

¶14

We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶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 16/02/2026 at 14:46:37

¶17

respondents, as no cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the petition is not maintainable. In any case, even the Revisional Authority, we have been informed, is based in Kolkata.

¶18

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. The pending applications are disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶19

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶20

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 11, 2026/rr

¶22

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 16/02/2026 at 14:46:37

Rajat Kumar v. the Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Kumar v. the 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anshul Aggarwal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Indupreet Thukral and Ors. Vs the Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Tushar Dev Vs Karvy Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Dev Narayan and Ors. Vs the Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority

Narendra Singh Rana Vs Union of India & Anr.

Apurva Rudra Sole Prorietor Global Marine Inspection Vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade and Ors.

Dps Society Vs UOI

Ex Nk Jay Prakash Gupta Ser No 7773020 K Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Ex Rifleman Brij Kishor

Lac Virender Choudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sgt Amar Lal Retd.

Ex-Cpl S Sreekantan Nair Vs Union of India & Ors.

Suresh Mankoti Vs Union of India & Ors.