The Delhi High Court has observed that filing petitions without jurisdiction imposes an undue burden on the Writ Court. Strongly deprecating this practice, the High Court stated that it might be necessary to adopt the practice of imposing costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition.

The Petitioner had filed the Petition against an order of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and for a direction upon AIIMS to allow her to continue in service.

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “Despite the categorical judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Court is faced with several petitions each week, where the jurisdictional position is known to counsel, but the writ petition is nonetheless pressed. In many of these cases, it is argued that the relief sought is urgent, and a last minute effort is made to persuade the Court to exercise jurisdiction so as to protect the litigant. Such cases not only jeopardise the litigant’s interest by burdening them with unnecessary effort, time, and resources, but also impose an undue burden on the writ Court. This practice is strongly deprecated. The Court is compelled to observe that, in such cases, it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs, even at the stage of withdrawal of the petition.”

Advocate Soumbhagya Ranjan Pati represented the Petitioner, while Senior CGC R.V. Sinha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner had approached the Tribunal with the service matter. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a direction of the Tribunal directing that the matter be treated as a representation to AIIMS. The Registry had also pointed out to the petitioner that the matter ought to be filed before the Tribunal. However, the petitioner filed an application for the listing of the matter without raising the issue of maintainability. It was stated therein that the impugned order of AIIMS gave rise to a fresh show cause of action.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment of the seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) and reaffirmed, “In cases which fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is not open to a litigant to approach the writ Court at the first instance, the sole exemption being where the vires of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is under challenge.”

Coming to the practice of filing petitions without jurisdiction, the Bench held that in such cases, it may now be necessary to adopt the practice of imposition of costs.

The Bench thus permitted the Petitioner’s Counsel to withdraw the writ petition and approach the Tribunal. “...the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the President and Secretary, Delhi High Court Bar Association, before the Court commences the practice of imposition of costs in such cases”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Meenakshi Tyagi v. Union of India (Case No.: W.P.(C) 14987/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Soumbhagya Ranjan Pati

Respondent: Sr. CGC R.V. Sinha, Advocates A.S. Singh, Shriya Sharma, V.S.R. Krishna & V. Shashank Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Prateek Jalan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.