Monday, July 7, 2025
Latest:
delhihighcourt

SURENDER SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Information

$~65
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.02.2025

+ W.P.(C) 1609/2025
SURENDER SINGH …..Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Mr.K. D. Sharma, SPC for UOI
Major Anish Muralidhar, Army.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 7826/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The same is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1609/2025
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following prayers:
“1. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to conduct a court-supervised, time-bound inquiry under videography into the actions of Col. Amit Bisht and other involved officers, including fabrication of documents, misuse of medical procedures, and obstruction of justice.
2. Declare all fabricated documents, including the Release Medical Board proceedings, pension orders, and any other fraudulent records, as null and void, thereby restoring the Petitioner’s legal and professional status.
3. Direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner as a serving Army personnel with immediate effect, along with all benefits and entitlements that were unjustly withheld.
4. Award adequate compensation for the immense mental, physical, and emotional trauma caused due to:
a. Forceful detention for 10 months in a military hospital
without due process.
b. Administration of harmful drugs and attempts to endanger the Petitioner’s life.
5. Harassment and humiliation for the past nine years due to fabricated allegations and denial of justice.
6. Considering the severity of these actions and the prolonged struggle, the Petitioner prays for compensation of 2 crore as a token of justice for the violations of fundamental rights and the irreparable damage caused to dignity and well-being.
7. Direct strict legal and disciplinary action against Col. Amit Bisht and other officers involved in the conspiracy, including their removal from service and prosecution under the applicable laws.
8. Pass any other or further writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice of this petition, submits that the petition raises a dispute relating to a ‘service matter’, as defined in Section 3 (o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the learned Armed Forces Tribunal to seek the relief prayed for.
5. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the present petition raises important questions regarding the functioning of the respondents and how the petitioner has been victimized in his service.
6. We are afraid that we would not like to go into these submissions in the present petition.
7. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, is clearly raising disputes with respect to ‘service matters’, as defined in Section 3 (o) of the AFT Act. Therefore, he has an alternate efficacious remedy in the form of approaching the learned Tribunal by way of an application under Section 14 of the AFT Act for the same relief.
8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to avail of his remedies in accordance with law.
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in the present petition.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

SHALINDER KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2025/sg/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) 1609/2025 Page 3 of 3