Anil Kumar Upadhaya vs Uoi And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5536 Del

Delhi High Court

Anil Kumar Upadhaya vs Uoi And Ors on 7 November, 2025

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                   $~S-1
                   *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                   +      W.P.(C) 1024/2010

                          ANIL KUMAR UPADHAYA                .....Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Karn
                                       Deo Baghel and Mr. Shivam Choudhary
                                       Advocates

                                            versus

                          UOI AND ORS                          .....Respondents
                                            Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla,
                                            CGSC with Mr. Pradumn Kumar Singh,
                                            Advocate

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                            ORDER

                   %                        07.11.2025

                   AJAY DIGPAUL, J. (ORAL)

Review Pet. 483/2025 and CM APPL. 59713/2025 (condonation of delay of 2 days in filing review petition), CM APPL. 59714/2025 (Exemption)

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a review of the judgment dated 08.08.2025, whereby W.P.(C) 1024/2010 was dismissed. The petitioner challenges the Summary Security Force Court trial, conviction under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 read with Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the subsequent dismissal from service.

2. After careful consideration of the grounds raised, this Court

finds no merit in the review petition. The issues raised in the review application have already been dealt with comprehensively in the judgment dated 08.08.2025.The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any "error apparent on the face of the record" or any sufficient reason warranting a review of the judgment.

3. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the review petition merely seeks to re-agitate issues that have already been considered and decided in the judgment dated 08.08.2025. The petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any miscarriage of justice that would warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction.

4. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

NOVEMBER 7, 2025/yg