Delhi High Court · 2026-05-21
PROF. ATUL KUMAR MITTAL vs INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-3969/2026 2026:DHC:4672
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- PROF. ATUL KUMAR MITTAL
- Respondent
- INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3969/2026 and CM APPL. 29605/2026 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: PROF. ATUL KUMAR MITTAL, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE R.P. MITTAL, RESIDENT OF 34, VIKRAMSHILA APARTMENTS, IIT DELHI CAMPUS, NEW DELHI – 110016. .....PETITIONER (Through: Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Ms. Shradha Narayan and Mr. Akshay Sahay, Advocates.) Versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110016. BOARD OF GOVERNORS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110016. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DELHI, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI – 110016. MS. X1 THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110016. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:23.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 15:24:48 1 KUMAR KAURAV MS. X2 THROUGH THE REGISTRAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI - 110016. .....RESPONDENTS (Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra and Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advocates.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 19432/2026 (filed by the petitioner for stay) 1. By way of the instant application, the Petitioner, a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Delhi, essentially seeks stay of the operation and implementation of the Resolution No. BG/36/2025 dated 08.05.2025 (“impugned resolution”) passed by the Board of Governors (“BOG”) of IIT Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court on third occasion in relation to the same set of allegations. Twice before, he has prevailed. The question, at the th