Delhi High Court · 2025-12-09
SHUBHAM VERMA vs CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS C DOT AND ORS
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-18217/2025 2025:DHC:11239
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SHUBHAM VERMA
- Respondent
- CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS C DOT AND ORS
Judgment text excerpt
$~123 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 + W.P.(C) 18217/2025 SHUBHAM VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sourabh Prakash and Mr. Utsav Jain, Advs. versus CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF TELEMATICS C DOT AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Dutta, Mr. Shyam Kishore Maurya and Ms. Ananya Jain, Ms. Akshita Gupta, AR for R-1 Mr. Abhinav Singh and Ms. Bharti Yadav, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Abhishek Atrey and Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayers: - “A. immediately comply with all GRAP orders issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in the premises of Respondent no.1 and ensure compliance in future; B. Direct Respondent no.3 and 4 to inspect the premises of Respondent no.1 and grant permission for construction activity only after ensuring compliance of GRAP orders; C. take appropriate action against the persons/officers responsible for the non-compliance of GRAP orders; D. grant the Petitioner work from home until Respondent no.1 is able to certify that the air quality is within permissible range for indoor environment; E. order that the period from 23.11.2025 until the Respondent no.1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 18217/2025 Page 1 of 7 By:UMANG Signing Date:12.12.2025 17:52:02 certifies that the air quality is within permissible range for indoor environment , when the Petitioner has been unable to go to work but has offered to Work From Home be treated as on duty; F. respond in a time bound manner, preferably within an hour, to all complaints made on Delhi Government’s Green Delhi App; G. Grant costs of this litigation.” 2. The petitioner is a ‘Scientist-E’, employed w