RAVINDER KUMAR LUTHRA vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~108 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10370/2025, CM APPL. 42997/2025 & CM APPL. 42998/2025 RAVINDER KUMAR LUTHRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advs. versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Vishal Chanda and Mr. Om Batra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA O R D E R [ORAL] % 22.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The order under challenge, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 on 9 July 2025, reads thus: “Order of the Tribunal Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and accepts notice. 1 “Tribunal” hereinafter W.P.(C) 10370/2025 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.07.2025 16:55:57 Four weeks time is granted to the respondents to file reply. Two weeks' time thereafter is granted to the applicant to file rejoinder, if any. List on 25.09.2025.” 2. We have heard Mr. Chhibber, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents at length. 3. Mr. Chhibber submits that the petitioner is facing dire circumstances and it was for that reason that the petitioner had moved the Tribunal for interim relief. He submits that on earlier occasions his client has been given protection even by this Court. Nonetheless, he submits, the Tribunal has not condescended to pass any order one way or the other on the petitioner’s prayer for interim relief. 4. We note, from the impugned order, that it does not indicate that there is a conscious decision by the Tribunal not to grant any ad interim relief to the petitioner. 5. Given the aforesaid submissions advanced by Mr. Chhibber, we