Dismissed¶4

Sangeetha T S v. Union of India & Anr. & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/371/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; Justice Sanjeev Narula; order dated 13.04.2026; W.P.(C) 371/2026; CM APPL. 1791-1792/2026; Sangeetha T S v. Union of India & Anr. & Ors.; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn at nascent stage; leave and liberty to file fresh petition on same cause of action; amended memo of parties impleading Respondent No. 3 returned under objection; averments concerning appointment of Respondent No. 3; advocates D. Rajeshwar Rao, Banka Bihari Panda (petitioner), Alok Dev SPC (UOI), Manjit Pathak (R-2), Apoorva Pal (R-3).

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with pending application(s); Petitioner granted leave and liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, incorporating appropriate averments including those concerning the appointment of Respondent No. 3, if so advised. ¶4

Sangeetha T S Vs Union of India & Anr. & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner may be granted leave to withdraw the present writ petition, with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action incorporating averments concerning the appointment of Respondent No. 3, instead of pursuing amendment of the existing petition.

¶2

Court's answer

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, were granted; considering that the petition was at a nascent stage, the Petitioner's request to withdraw rather than amend was accepted.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, incorporating appropriate averments, including those concerning the appointment of Respondent No. 3, if so advised.

¶3

Key takeaways

With the above directions, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with pending application(s), if any.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sanjeev Narula, J.), order dated 13.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 371/2026, CM APPL. 1791-1792/2026 (Sangeetha T S v. Union of India & Anr. & Ors.). The amended memo of parties impleading Respondent No. 3 had been returned under objection, and counsel submitted that the petition would require amendment to plead against the appointment of Respondent No. 3. Counsel instead sought leave to withdraw the petition, which was at a nascent stage, with liberty to file a fresh petition so as to expedite proceedings. The Court granted the leave and liberty, permitted the Petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action incorporating appropriate averments, including concerning the appointment of Respondent No. 3, if so advised, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn along with pending application(s), if any. Procedural disposal only; no substantive merits adjudicated, no statutes or precedents engaged.

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 371/2026, CM APPL. 1791-1792/2026

¶4

SANGEETHA T S .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr. Banka Bihari Panda, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Dev, SPC for UOI. Mr. Manjit Pathak, Advocate for R-2. Ms. Apoorva Pal, Advocate for R-3.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶10

The amended memo of parties filed by the Petitioner, impleading Respondent No. 3, has been returned under objection. However, counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to such impleadment, the petition would require amendment, as the Petitioner proposes to incorporate specific pleadings challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 3.

¶11

In these circumstances, he prays that leave be granted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, instead of pursuing amendment, so as to expedite the proceedings.

¶12

Leave and liberty, as prayed for, are granted. Considering that the petition is at a nascent stage, the request of the Petitioner is accepted. The Petitioner is permitted to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, incorporating appropriate averments, including those concerning the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 15/04/2026 at 12:15:28

¶15

appointment of Respondent No. 3, if so advised.

¶16

With the above directions, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with pending application(s), if any.

¶17

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶18

APRIL 13, 2026/ab

¶19

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 15/04/2026 at 12:15:28

Sangeetha T S v. Union of India & Anr. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha T S v. Union of India & Anr. & 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

Dr. Vaisakh Sanal Vs Maulana Azad Medical College

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

R.L.Moria Vs UOI & Ors.

Umar Iqbal Raina Vs National Testing Agency Nta & Ors.

Samrita Singh Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Sanjay Kuamr Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Babu Lal Koli Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sanjay Goel Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Anita Kumari Shimar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sandhya v N Vs Union of India & Anr.

Bhagat Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Johar Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Manohar Singh Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Subhash Chand Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.