Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

march 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-03-03

MAHVISH FAROOQ vs ANIL MALIK & ORS

Citation / case number
CONT.CAS(C)-92/2020 2025:DHC:1417
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
MAHVISH FAROOQ
Respondent
ANIL MALIK & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 3rd March, 2025 + CONT.CAS(C) 92/2020 MAHVISH FAROOQ .....Petitioner Through: None. versus ANIL MALIK & ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Amrita Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Vishal Ashwani Mehta and Ms. Anju Kaushik, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. None appears on behalf of petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for respondents, however, submits that the contempt petition does not survive anymore. 3. The petitioner has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for wilful violation of order dated 22.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7813/2019. 4. The petitioner had filed the abovesaid writ petition praying for directions to respondents to consider her application for being registered as a citizen of India and, accordingly, for grant of Indian citizenship in accordance with law. 5. While disposing of the abovesaid writ petition, the respondents were directed to process the abovesaid application in accordance with law. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 92/2020 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:04.03.2025 16:56:24 6. The present contempt petition has been filed for the reason that despite there being abovesaid direction, there is no decision and the period of more than six months has already elapsed. 7. On previous occasions, though the status reports were furnished by respondent, it has now been informed that the Government of India has already taken a decision with respect to her such request. It is stated that the request of petitioner for grant of Indian citizenship has not been acceded to by the Competent Authority. 8. Such order of rejection is stated to be of 16.02.2024. 9. According to learned counsel for respondent, it is a reaso

MAHVISH FAROOQ vs ANIL MALIK & ORS · Niyam