Disposed¶23

Abdul Sazad Ansari v. Public Works Department Gnctd & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/355/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

transfer order; stay of transfer; interim relief; Central Administrative Tribunal; O.A./4719/2025; M.A./5500/2025; Annexure-P7; alleged Transfer Policy; AI generated document; intra-city transfer within Delhi; Public Works Department GNCTD; Article 226 Constitution of India; writ petition disposed of; no interference with CAT order.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the Petitioner; the writ petition was disposed of with observations that the Tribunal shall decide the pending O.A. uninfluenced by the impugned order or the present order. Exemption applications CM APPL. 1759/2026 and CM APPL. 1760/2026 were allowed subject to all just exceptions. ¶23

Abdul Sazad Ansari Vs Public Works Department Gnctd… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dated 06.01.2026 refusing to stay the Petitioner's transfer order and to grant any interim relief.

¶14

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the impugned Tribunal order, considering that the Petitioner had been transferred from one office to another within the city of Delhi.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The learned Tribunal shall proceed to decide the pending Original Application uninfluenced by the impugned order or by the present order of the High Court.

¶22

Key takeaways

Petitioner's counsel was unable to dispute, at that juncture, the respondents' submission that Annexure-P7 (alleged Transfer Policy) is not part of any official document issued by the State and is in fact an AI generated document; the point was not decided by the High Court.obiter¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.01.2026 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in M.A./5500/2025 in O.A./4719/2025, whereby the Tribunal had refused to stay the Petitioner's transfer order and to grant any interim relief. The Court declined interference, considering that the Petitioner had been transferred from one office to another within the city of Delhi. The respondents had pointed out that the alleged Transfer Policy (Annexure-P7) relied upon by the Petitioner was not part of any official document issued by the State and was in fact an AI generated document, a fact which the Petitioner's counsel was unable to dispute at that juncture. The Tribunal was left free to decide the pending Original Application uninfluenced by the impugned order or the present order.

¶1

$~83

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 355/2026, CM APPL. 1758/2026 & CM APPL. 1761/2026

¶4

ABDUL SAZAD ANSARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shaad Anwar, Ms. Shabnam Farooqui, Mr. Jayant Yadav & Mr. Parvez Alam, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GNCTD & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mrs Avnish Ahlawat SC GNCTD services, Mr Uday Singh Ahlawat, Mrs Tania Ahlawat, Mr Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms Aliza Alam, Mr Mohnish Sehrawat

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 12.01.2026

¶10

CM APPL. 1759/2026 [ for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures and orders ], CM APPL. 1760/2026 [ for exemption from filing typed / legible copies of the dim / illegible documents ]

¶11

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Applications stand disposed of.

¶13

W.P.(C) 355/2026, CM APPL. 1758/2026 & CM APPL. 1761/2026

¶14

Through the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the correctness of order dated 06.01.2026, passed in M.A./5500/2025 in O.A./4719/2025, whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal refused to stay

¶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 15/01/2026 at 13:29:47

¶17

the transfer order and grant any interim relief to the Petitioner.

¶18

Undisputedly, Original Application filed by the Petitioner is pending before the learned Tribunal.

¶19

On 09.01.2026, learned counsel representing the Petitioner relied upon a copy of the alleged Transfer Policy (Annexure-P7). 6. Learned counsel representing the Govt. of NCT of Delhi submits that the document which is annexed as Annexure-P7 is not part of any official document issued by the State, and in fact, is an AI generated document.

¶20

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner is unable to dispute this fact at this juncture.

¶21

In such circumstances, considering that the Petitioner has been transferred from one office to another within the city of Delhi, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order.

¶22

Needless to say, the learned Tribunal shall proceed to decide the matter uninfluenced by the impugned order or the present order.

¶23

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶24

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶25

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶26

JANUARY 12, 2026 “SK”

¶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 15/01/2026 at 13:29:47

Abdul Sazad Ansari v. Public Works Department Gnctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sazad Ansari v. Public Works Department Gnctd & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Vs Delhi Development Authority Andors

Hind Samraiya Party Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Sumit Vs University of Delhi

Jeet Singh Vs the Commissioner of MCD and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Suman Vs General Manager (Nw-Iii)/(Disciplinary Authority) State Bank of India and Ors.

M/S Cottex Dyeing Vs Rajesh Singh & Anr.

Dheeraj Gupta Vs Addl. Commissioner of Police Licensing Unit and Anr.

Rajveer Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ramesh Chandra Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Dinesh Kumar Abrol Vs UOI & Ors.

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Hawa Singh

S.P. Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

R S Meena Vs MCD & Ors.

Rs Meena Vs MCD and Ors.