Delhi High Court
Babu Lal Mitharwal vs Union Of India on 18 September, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~110
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7060/2015
BABU LAL MITHARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gyanant Kumar Singh and
Mr. Suraj Pratap, Advs,.
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain,
CGSC with Mr. Ankush Kapoor and Mr.
Vishwadeep, Advs.
Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Aditi Kukreja,
Amicus Curie
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 18.09.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. The prayer clause in this writ petition reads thus:
"Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ in nature of certiorified mandamus and
quash Section 22 of the Police Act, 1861(No.5 of 1861) and
section 24 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (No.34 of 1978),
demanding arduous duty hours of 24 x 7, warranting excess
working hours of more than 12 hours of duty, without any
guidelines per day, from every police personnel, being ultra
vires and being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India in the light of passage of time and change of lifestyle
in terms of human livelihood;
b) The issuance of writ of mandamus and any other
appropriate writ or issuing directions to the respondent to
W.P.(C) 7060/2015
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.09.2025
19:06:43
effective mechanism for fixing 8 hours duty hours and
proper break after the long hours duty to maintain their
efficiency and good physical and mental health.
c) Pass such other writ or writs as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and just, in the interests of justice.
2. Mr. Gyanant Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
concedes the fact that, during the pendency of this writ petition, the
petitioner has superannuated.
3. In that case, no cause of action survives for the petitioner to
maintain the present writ petition, as the grievance forming subject
matter of the prayers in this writ petition can only be urged by a
person who is in service. Mr. Singh concedes the fact that, had the
petitioner already been retired before this writ petition was filed, this
petition could not have been maintained. Notably, the petition has not
been filed as a public interest litigation.
4. In that view of the matter, we do not see why we should
continue to retain this writ petition on the board of this court after the
petitioner has superannuated.
5. Mr. Singh has also pointed out to us that, by various orders
passed by this Court, the scope of this writ petition has been enlarged
and that this Court was looking into the ameliorating the conditions of
service of Delhi Police, for which an Amicus Curiae was appointed, a
report obtained from the learned Amicus Curiae, and further orders
passed.
W.P.(C) 7060/2015
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.09.2025
19:06:43
6. While we are not certain as to whether this Court could have
thus enhanced the jurisdiction of a writ petition which was filed in
personam, if this court were to embark on any such steps, the lis
would be in the nature of a public interest litigation. In case the
petitioner desires to take up these issues as a public interest litigation,
we reserve liberty with him to do so by filing an appropriate petition
in that regard which, if and when filed, would have to be placed before
the Bench which deals with public interest litigations.
7. The prayers in this writ petition, clearly, do not survive for
consideration after superannuation of the petitioner.
8. The petition is disposed of as having become infructuous,
subject to the caveat in para 6 supra.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/dsn
W.P.(C) 7060/2015
KUMAR
Signing Date:19.09.2025
19:06:43
