AASTHA ELECTRICALS vs UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF POWER & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8570/2023 Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: AASTHA ELECTRICALS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Ms. Mansi Rose Taneja, Ms. Rishika Jain, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF POWER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms Arunima Dwivedi CGSC with Ms Himanshi Singh Adv Ms Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Mukul Singh CGSC, Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Samdarshi Sanjay Ms. Monika Sharma Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey Mr. Ashish Kumar Sharma, Advocates for R-2. Dr. Aman Rab and Mrs. Payal Bhatia, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:24.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:35:28 W.P.(C) 8570/2023 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV 1. It appears that respondent no.2-Energy Efficiency Service Limited was awarded the contract by the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun i.e. Respondent no.3 herein, in this particular case, and the petitioner was the sub-contractor of respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner seeks certain enquiry against the conduct of respondent no.2. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner presses for prayer „b‟ of the petition, which reads as under: “b. Grant a Writ/Order/Direction directing inquiries to be made through the offices of CAG/CVC/CBI into the mismanagement and misappropriation public funds in Respondent No. 2 prompted and promoted by Respondent No. 1;” 3. The overall facts and circumstances, however, indicate that respondent no.2 essentially had sub-let the work to be performed by the petitioner with respect to the Nagar Nigam, Dehradun. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the