PROF. (RTD.) DESH BANDHU vs SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~45 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 27.03.2026 + LPA 157/2026 PROF. (RTD.) DESH BANDHU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. versus SCHOOL OF PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE, NEW DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra with Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (Oral) CM APPL. 19097/2026 (for exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of. LPA 157/2026 3. This Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.02.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed in W.P.(C) No. 2844/2026 (“Writ Petition”), whereby the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant was trying to re-open the very same issue, which was abandoned earlier in W.P.(C) No. 10752/2025 (“Earlier Writ Petition”) disposed of vide order dated 08.08.2025. Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM LPA 157/2026 Page 1 of 5 SHARMA Signing Date:02.04.2026 15:45:26 4. The Appellant has challenged the Impugned Order on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that while disposing the Earlier Writ Petition, a liberty was granted to the Appellant to approach the Respondent for sympathetic consideration of this case. However, when the representation was made by the Appellant to the Respondent pursuant to the order dated 08.08.2025 passed in the Earlier Writ Petition, the said representation was rejected by the Respondent vide letter dated 19.01.2026 without giving any valid reason by merely stating that “your request is rejected, until there is a specific direction from the Court of law”. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition did not c