Mr. Mukesh Kumar Vs Judo Fedration of India and Ors.

¶1

$~91

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 5963/2025 & CM APPL. 74189/2025

¶4

MR. MUKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Yogyata Jhunjhunwala, Mr. Aniteja Sharma, Mr. Shashank Singh, Ms. Shalini Sinha, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

JUDO FEDRATION OF INDIA AND ORS

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advocate for Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC for R-3 with SI Rajender, D.P.

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 12.01.2026

¶12

The petitioner, by way of the instant writ petition, seeks the following directions:

¶13

“(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, for directions TO THE respondent no.1 and respondent no. 2 to produce the final selection list and respondent no. 3 to consider the letter issued by the Judo Federation of India, after its verification from respondent no. 2, as valid and sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s participation in the final selection trials for the asian judo championship, for the purpose of granting the petitioner the out-of turn promotion as per clause 5(b)(2a) of standing order no. 4/1989

¶14

(b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, for directions to the Respondent No.3 to accept the Communication dated issued by Respondent No.1 if the Selection list for

¶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 13:38:30

¶17

the Final Trial of Asian Games held at SAI Center Banglore for considering Petitioner’s Representation dated 23.02.2024 (c) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶18

During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out various documents so as to indicate that the petitioner is entitled for out of turn promotion as per clause 5(b)(2a) of standing order No. 4/1989. Additionally, he also submits that pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, some documents have been brought on record which further indicate that some participants of the same events have also reaffirmed the petitioner’s selection.

¶19

Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on advance instructions, submits that as per his instructions, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit as he does not meet the criteria laid down in standing order No.4/1989. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the communication dated 24.07.2025, relevant portion of which is extracted as under:

¶20

“ With reference to your Ltr. No. A/10/1 9IV02)/2025/51402/Prom.Cell/CB-IV/PHQ, Dated 22/07/2025, I am directed by the Hon'ble Administrator to inform you that as per the records there was no team events in the Judo events of the 1994 Asian Games - Hiroshima. The team events (mixed team) inducted in Judo by the International Judo Federation from 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games.”

¶21

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the aforesaid communication does not disentitle the petitioner.

¶22

Be that as it may, the matter will have to be taken to its logical conclusion by the respondent no.3- Commissioner of Police. If on the basis of the material which the petitioner seeks to place reliance on, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit, there is no reason as to why the same should be

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 13:38:30

¶25

denied.

¶26

If there are any deficiencies which the petitioner does not meet, let a speaking order be passed by respondent no.3 to that effect, enabling the petitioner thereafter, to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶28

Let the petitioner’s representation be decided by the competent authority within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

¶29

The petitioner shall have liberty to place on record the additional material including a copy of the petition along with all annexures.

¶30

If the petitioner seeks the opportunity of personal hearing, let the same be also afforded.

¶31

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶32

JANUARY 12, 2026/P/MJ

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 13:38:30

Mr. Mukesh Kumar v. Judo Fedration of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mukesh Kumar v. Judo Fedration of India and Ors.

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

Anil Dutt Sharma Vs the Special Task Force & Ors.

Suresh Devi & Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Anuj Jain & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Gunjan Kumar Jha Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sushil Kumar & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cipla Limited & Anr. Vs Drugs Controller General of India & Anr.

Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gagan Jindal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Kamlesh Sharma Vs Municipal Coporation of Delhi & Ors.

South Patel Nagar 9 Block and Ranjit Nagar Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar IAS Commissioner

Acm Legal through Partner Mr. Amitesh Chandra Mishra Vs Inspecting Officer/Inspector Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner District East Labour Departme

M/S Spb Tradelink Private Limited Vs Shashank Saxena

Tina Goyal Vs Prateek Madhan & Anr.