SUBHAJIT KUMAR RAY vs CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15234/2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: SUBHAJIT KUMAR RAY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Parashar, Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Advocates. versus CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Mr Manish Kumar Singh, Mr Vasu Agarwal, Advocates for R-1. Mr Premtosh K Mishra, CGSC, Mr Shrey Sharma, Mr Anubhav Upadhyay, Mr Arpit Bamal Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 33128/2026 (BY PETITIONER- EARLY HEARING) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. 2. The writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself. W.P.(C) 15234/2025 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:16.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:08:14 W.P.(C) 15234/2025 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV 3. Heard. 4. The petition is for the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to discharge its statutory functions under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(h) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 by inquiring or causing an independent inquiry to be made into the Petitioner’s complaint dated 01.04.2024 and to pass a reasoned speaking order there on. (b) Issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the action of Respondent No 1 in forwarding the Complaint dated 01.04.2024 to Respondent No 2 for necessary action is illegal and not in consonance with the procedure laid down in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder. (c) Direct that the Respondents communicate to the Petitioner an action taken report on an quarterly basis.”