Disposed¶24

Saquib Khan v. Vodafone Idea Limited and Another

Delhi HC9 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/300/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition Article 226 maintainability; mobile number reassignment; lost SIM/Lost Information Report; consumer dispute vs writ jurisdiction; Vodafone Idea Limited; TRAI regulations; Rs. 60,000 reassignment charge; Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 300/2025; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav; petition disposed of, rights left open.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition stands disposed of with all rights and contentions left open. ¶24

Saquib Khan Vs Vodafone Idea Limited and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 300/2025

¶4

SAQUIB KHAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Mohini Kumari, Adv.

¶6

versus

¶7

VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Mukul Singh CGSC, Ms. Ira Singh Adv, Mr Aryan Dhaka, Advs. for R-2.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R

¶11

% 09.02.2026

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner that he was a subscriber of three mobile numbers provided by respondent No.1 and he seems to have lost possession of two mobile numbers. According to him, he promptly registered Lost Information Report (LIR) to report the loss. His grievance is that respondent no.1 has failed to re-assign the numbers to the petitioner.

¶13

With this background, the petitioner has filed the instant petition with the following reliefs:

¶14

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to immediately reassign the mobile numbers 9990233188, 9990233199, and 9999227456 to the Petitioner without any additional cost.

¶15

2. Declare the demand for Rs. 60,000 for the reassignment of 9999227456 as illegal and restrain Respondent No. 1 from enforcing it.

¶16

3. Direct Respondent No. 1 to comply with TRAI regulations and ensure that similar grievances of other consumers are resolved in a timely and

¶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 11/02/2026 at 11:40:08

¶19

fair manner.

¶20

4. Award costs and compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Petitioner due to the Respondent's actions.

¶21

5. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶22

The respondents controvert the aforesaid position and submit that no cause has arisen for the petitioner to file this petition.

¶23

The dispute if any, would essentially relate to the consumer dispute, and the petitioner will have to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In any case, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such a dispute may not be amenable to be adjudicated. It essentially requires the adjudication of the terms and contract between the parties.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. All rights and contentions are left open.

¶25

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 9, 2026/P

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 11/02/2026 at 11:40:08

Saquib Khan v. Vodafone Idea Limited and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saquib Khan v. Vodafone Idea Limited and Another

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

Anuj Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

Sri Saudan Singh Institute of Higher Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Smt Harpyari Devi Girls Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Siddharth Mishra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Madanjit Kumar Vs Central Electronics Limited

Sh. Sanjeev Rana Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Mahesh Nath Singh Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Ors.

Deepak Kaushik Vs Principal Judge North West District and Ors.

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.

Firefly Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs P. Sudhakaran & Anr.

Munawara Mahboobi on Behalf of Mursal Kakar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Poonam Sharma and Ors. Vs M/S a 1SECURITY Service and Ors.