Navendu Agarwal v. Shri Rajesh Pandey

Delhi HC6 May 2026CONT.CAS(C)/16/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt of court; wilful disobedience; CONT.CAS(C); Delhi High Court; Justice Sachin Datta; informer reward; Guidelines for Grant of Reward to Informers and Government Servants, 2015; GST evasion information; M/s Mi2c Security & Facilities Private Limited; M/s Prehari Cyber Security & Facilities Private Limited; DGGI; Rajesh Pandey; Navendu Agarwal; W.P.(C) 14957/2024; order dated 28.10.2024; compliance by communication dated 13.03.2025; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

None; the contempt petition was disposed of with no further orders, compliance having been shown by the communication dated 13.03.2025. ¶¶22

Navendu Agarwal Vs Shri Rajesh Pandey — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 16/2025 NAVENDU AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: None.

¶5

versus

¶6

SHRI RAJESH PANDEY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr. SC, DGGI.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

¶8

SACHIN DATTA, J. ( ORAL )

¶9

None appears for the petitioner.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 14957/2024. The said order reads as under:

¶11

“1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the non-payment of the reward amount by the Respondents, asserting that he is entitled for the same under the Guidelines for Grant of Reward to Informers and Government Servants, 2015.

¶12

2. It is contended that on 24th February, 2021, the Petitioner informed the Respondents about two companies namely, M/s Mi2c Security & Facilities Private Limited and M/s Prehari Cyber Security & Facilities Private Limited, who allegedly withheld tax and engaged in fraudulent GST collection amounting to INR 40 to 50 crores. The said information proved to be helpful and upon a raid conducted, substantial amount was recovered from the aforesaid companies. In this regard, the Petitioner relies upon the communication dated 1st August, 2022 issued by the Respondents delineating the pending liability of evader companies.

¶13

3. Subsequently, Petitioner requested for the reward through communication dated 22nd January, 2023, however, no response has been forthcoming by the Respondents.

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

CONT.CAS(C) 16/2025 Page 1 of 2

¶16

Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 18:28:18

¶17

4. Having considered the aforenoted facts, this Court is of the opinion that Respondent No. 1 must take a decision on the Petitioner’s request.

¶18

5. For this purpose, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 1 to consider the instant petition as a representation of the Petitioner and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks from today.

¶19

6. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. In case the Petitioner’s case is found to be meritorious, Respondent No. 1 shall be free to consider the request for release of interim reward amount.

¶20

7. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending application, is disposed of.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of by way of a communication dated 13.03.2025. The same has been filed as Annexure A1 to the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent.

¶22

As such, it is contended that the necessary compliance has been done. 5. Accordingly, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition; the same is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶23

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶24

MAY 6, 2026/ at/sv

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

CONT.CAS(C) 16/2025 Page 2 of 2

¶27

Digitally Signed By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Da te:1 1.05.2026 18:28:18

Navendu Agarwal v. Shri Rajesh Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navendu Agarwal v. Shri Rajesh Pandey

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

Naresh Chand and Ors. Vs Sh. Wairokpam Punshiba Singh and Anr.

Manshi Gupta Vs Govt. of Delhi N.C.T & Ors.

Mahua Gupta & Anr. Vs Binay Bhushan & Ors.

Leenu Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another

Sushant Anand Vs Neha Luthra

Jaskirat Singh Sethi Vs Pekhna Sethi

Sangeeta Aggarwal Vs Anuja Trivedi & Anr.

Ms Simirin Bogra Vs Mr. Dhruv Bogra

Manshi Gupta Vs Govt. of Delhi N.C.T & Ors.

Shaurya Foundation Trust & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Leenu Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another

Brilltech Engineers Private Limited Vs Bharti Singh

Vinod Gugnani & Anr. Vs Sh. Rahul Saini & Ors.

Vinod Gugnani & Anr. Vs Sh. Rahul Saini & Ors.