Delhi High Court · 2025-12-05
TELECOM WATCHDOG THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MR. VIKRAM MITTAL vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- CM APPL.-72474/2025 2025:DHC:10854-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- TELECOM WATCHDOG THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MR. VIKRAM MITTAL
- Respondent
- UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:- 01.12.2025. % Judgment pronounced on:- 05.12.2025. + W.P.(C) 10621/2020 TELECOM WATCHDOG THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MR. VIKRAM MITTAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. Sanyam Jain, Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Ms. Khushboo Singhal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shaildendra Kumar Mishra, Advs. for R-1 and R-3. Mr. Sanjay Lao, SC, Criminal with Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC, Criminal, Mr. N.K. Jha, APP and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Adv. Mr.Vikas Kumar and Mr.Ayush Kapur, Advs for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA JUDGMENT DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J. CM APPL. 72474/2025 1. This miscellaneous application has been moved by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10621/2020, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 09.08.2024. The writ petition, in fact, was Signature Not Verified Digiltally Signed By:SREERAM LCM APPL. 72474/2025 in W.P.(C) 10621/2020 Page 1 of 13 Signing Date:05.12.2025 17:45:45 disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if any new cause of action arises. The order passed on 09.08.2024 in W.P.(C) 10621/2020 is extracted hereinbelow:- “1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, wishes to withdraw the present writ petition along with the CM APPL. 29426/2021 with liberty to file a fresh petition if a new cause of action arises. 2. With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition and the application are disposed of. 3. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy.” 2. The petitioner by moving the instant app