Dismissed¶31

Union of India & Ors. v. Kasim Khan & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4431/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court oral order dated 06.04.2026 (C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla JJ) in W.P.(C) 4431/2026, CM APPLs. 21744/2026 & 21745/2026 (Union of India & Ors. v. Kasim Khan & Ors.): writ petition dismissed in limine for challenging a consent order dated 5 March 2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of the OA at admission stage; representations to be considered in light of CAT Cuttack Bench order dated 19.12.2024 in O.A. No.260/00339/2020 (Subrat Ranjan Mallick & Ors. v. Surveyor General of India & Ors.), appeal against which failed before the High Court of Orissa; costs waived owing to counsel's fair stance; express warning that writ petitions challenging consent orders may not meet a lenient approach hereafter.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed in limine and costs were not imposed.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Kasim Khan & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed in limine and costs were not imposed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the consent order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (disposing of the applicants' OA at admission stage) should be entertained by this Court.

¶14

Court's answer

The writ petition challenging the consent order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is dismissed in limine.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Costs, though otherwise inclined to be awarded, were refrained from in view of the fair stance taken by counsel for the petitioners, who conceded the petition was filed on instructions from the official respondents.

¶26

Key takeaways

Caution for the future: writ petitions challenging orders passed by consent, similar to this one, may not hereafter meet with such a lenient approach.obiter¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of the High Court of Delhi (C. Hari Shankar & Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., 06.04.2026) dismissing in limine W.P.(C) 4431/2026 filed by Union of India & Ors. challenging the consent order dated 5 March 2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which disposed of the OA of Kasim Khan & Ors. at admission stage — without expressing any opinion on merits — directing the respondent/Competent Authority to consider each contention of the applicants' pending representations and decide in light of the order dated 19.12.2024 of the Tribunal's Cuttack Bench in O.A. No.260/00339/2020 (Subrat Ranjan Mallick & Ors. v. Surveyor General of India & Ors.) by a reasoned and speaking order within sixty days. Noting that the appeal against the Cuttack Bench order had already failed before the High Court of Orissa, and that counsel for the petitioners fairly admitted the writ was filed on official instructions, the Court forewent the costs it was otherwise inclined to impose, dismissed the petition in limine, and cautioned that future writ petitions challenging consent orders may not receive such a lenient approach.

¶1

$~82

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4431/2026, CM APPLs. 21744/2026 & 21745/2026

¶4

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, SPC with Mr. Yash Basoya, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

KASIM KHAN & ORS. .....Respondents

¶8

Through:

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

¶11

ORDER(ORAL)

¶12

% 06.04.2026

¶13

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶14

1. We are disturbed by the fact that this writ petition has been filed challenging a consent order. We may reproduce, for ready reference, paras 6 to 11 of the impugned order dated 5 March 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as under:

¶15

“6. Learned counsel for the applicants after arguing for sometime submits that the applicants would be satisfied if direction is issued to respondents to consider applicants' representations ( Annexure A-1 ) in light of Order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No.260/00339/2020 as stated in M.A. No.695/2025 filed on 13.01.2025.

¶16

Ms. Manu Priya Verma Rawat, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that pending representations shall be considered in light of Order dated 19.12.2024 in OA No.339 /2020 (CAT Cuttack Bench).

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 4431/2026 Signing Date:08.04.2026 17:58:17

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Heard with consent. We have considered the matter in view of above submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the present case. Applicants have already filed MA No.695/2025 to dispose of the OA in hand in same terms as decided vide order dated 19.12.2024 by Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal m O.A. No.260/00339/2020 [ Subrat Ranjan Mallick & Ors. v. Surveyor General of India & Ors. ] .

¶21

In view of the above, we deem it just and proper that the principles of natural justice would be met and hereby direct the respondent/Competent Authority to consider each contention of the pending representations of the applicants and take a decision in light of and considering order dated 19.12.2024 passed in O.A. No.260/00339/2020 [ Subrat Ranjan Mallick & Ors. v. Surveyor General of India & Ors. ] by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of sixty (60) days from date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today and consequences shall ensure .

¶22

Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and respondents are free to decide pending representation of the applicant in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶23

In view whereof, the present OA stands disposed of at admission stage itself in above indicated terms.”

¶24

2. Mr. Goyal, who appears for the petitioners, fairly submits that the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in OA in Subrat Ranjan Mallick was also carried in appeal with the High Court of Orissa, unsuccessfully.

¶25

3. He has however submitted that this writ petition was filed on instructions from the official respondents.

¶26

4. In view of the fair stance taken by Mr. Goyal, we refrain from awarding costs in this matter which, otherwise, we were inclined to do.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signed By:GUNN W.P.(C) 4431/2026 Signing Date:08.04.2026 17:58:17

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

5. We make it clear that writ petitions challenging orders passed by consent, similar to this, may not, hereafter, meet with such a lenient approach.