Sameer Sidqui v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15290/2024 & CM APPL. 64239/2024 SAMEER SIDDIQUI .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Nitesh Saini, Mr. Haider Ali and Ms. Lavi Tanwar, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, ASC with Mr.

Naved Ahmed, Mr. Vivek Kr. Singh and Mr. Shubham Kr., Advocates for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 28.11.2024 1.

The Petitioner's grievance in the present petition relates to the rejection/ dismissal of his complaint dated 24th February, 2024 by Respondent No. 3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department vide communication dated 04th October, 20241. The said complaint was directed against Respondent No. 3 and 4 and was submitted to several authorities, which included the Lt. Governor of Delhi, Anti-Corruption Branch, Central Vigilance Commission, CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Chief Engineer of PWD, SHO - PS Alipur, DCP (Outer North) as well as Respondent No. 3. 2.

The complaint was directed against the actions of Respondent No. 3 and 4, alleging that they were stealing iron rods from the Children Home The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Complex, Department of Woman and Child Development, GNCTD2, which was sought to be demolished and rebuilt. In the complaint, the Petitioner alleged that on being confronted with video evidence of such illegal acts, Respondents No. 3 and 4 threated to bring harm to the Petitioner or implicate him in a false case. In light of the above, the Petitioner's grievance is that his complaint has been summarily dismissed by the office of Respondent No. 3 vide the impugned communication, by relying upon a letter from Respondent No. 4 dated 01st October, 2024, denying the said allegations.

3.

Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, ASC representing Government of NCT of Delhi3, states on instructions, that the Petitioner's understanding is not correct as his complaint dated 24th February, 2024, has not been dismissed but rather the same is being examined by the Anti-Corruption Branch of GNCTD. In this regard, he states that the letter dated 01st October, 2024, which has been enclosed with the impugned communication dated 04th October, 2024, is only a letter issued by the Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer, and the same does not constitute closure of the complaint.

4.

In light of the above, since the matter is still being examined by the Anti-Corruption Branch, no further directions are necessary in the present writ petition. The Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCTD is directed to examine the complaint and take appropriate actions, in accordance with law. 5.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, along with pending application.

1 "Impugned communication"

2 "site"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

6.

All rights and contentions of parties are reserved. SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2024 d.negi 3 "GNCTD"

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.