Arvind Sharma and Anr. vs State of Nct of Delhi and Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Jan 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1255250

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1255250
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan
Decided On: Jan 30, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(CRL)/332/2026
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arvind Sharma and Anr.

Advocate Mr. Mukul Sharma

Respondent

State of Nct of Delhi and Ors.

Advocate Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Mr. Sangeet Sibon, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh

Excerpt

.....17.01.2026, have been issued arising out of the aforesaid violation, which are showing on the traffic police portal, i.e. one to the petitioner no.1, as the owner of the vehicle, and other to the petitioner no. 2 as driver of the vehicle. in fact, mr. mukulw.p.(crl) 332/2026 page 1 of 2this is a digitally signed order. the authenticity of the order can be re-verified from delhi high court order portal by scanning the qr code shown above. the order is downloaded from the dhc server on 02/02/2026 at 12:37:23 sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has now received a third challan in respect of the same violation. 3. mr. sharma submits that the petitioners’ vehicle has, in fact, been registered in the name of petitioner no. 1, and has not been stolen. despite repeated inquiries, the petitioners are not getting any clear information as to the reason for the blacklisting of the vehicle. 4. mr. rahul tyagi, learned additional standing counsel, who appears on advance notice, submits, upon instruction, that blacklisting of vehicle arose out as an e-fir registered by an unrelated party, in which the registration number of the petitioners’ vehicle number was erroneously mentioned as the stolen vehicle. he further submits that they have since verified the petitioners’ documents, and ascertained that the petitioners’ vehicle is not required to be blacklisted. he therefore submits that necessary steps will be taken to remove the petitioners’ vehicle from the blacklisting list. 5. consequently, mr. tyagi also submits that if the petitioners’ approach the concerned court for the cancellation of the challans in respect of the pucc, the respondent will not oppose the cancellation of challans. 6. the writ petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of, binding the respondent to these submissions.prateek jalan, j january 30, 2026 ‘pv’/ad/w.p.(crl) 332/2026 page 2 of 2this is a digitally signed.....

Full Judgment

$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 332/2026 & CRL.M.A. 3217/2026 ARVIND SHARMA AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Mukul Sharma, Advocate. versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Sangeet Sibon, Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh & Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advocates SI Sachin Jaswal, PS Sarai Rohilla. SI Nitesh Mahija, PS Sagarpur. ASI Devender Singh, Parvi Officer, Insp. Sanjay Sharma, Tilak Nagar. ASI Bripal, Tilak Nagar CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN ORDER % 30.01.2026 1. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, with a grievance which has its genesis in the blacklisting of the vehicle belonging to petitioner No. 1 [DL-10-SU-3355] on the ground that it is a stolen vehicle. 2. As a result of the blacklisting of the vehicle, the petitioners were unable to obtain a Pollution Under Control Certificate [“PUCC”]. Consequently, two challans dated 17.01.2026, have been issued arising out of the aforesaid violation, which are showing on the traffic police portal, i.e. one to the petitioner No.1, as the owner of the vehicle, and other to the petitioner No. 2 as driver of the vehicle. In fact, Mr. Mukul

W.P.(CRL) 332/2026 Page 1 of 2

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 12:37:23 Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has now received a third challan in respect of the same violation. 3. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioners’ vehicle has, in fact, been registered in the name of petitioner No. 1, and has not been stolen. Despite repeated inquiries, the petitioners are not getting any clear information as to the reason for the blacklisting of the vehicle. 4. Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned Additional Standing Counsel, who appears on advance notice, submits, upon instruction, that blacklisting of vehicle arose out as an e-FIR registered by an unrelated party, in which the registration number of the petitioners’ vehicle number was erroneously mentioned as the stolen vehicle. He further submits that they have since verified the petitioners’ documents, and ascertained that the petitioners’ vehicle is not required to be blacklisted. He therefore submits that necessary steps will be taken to remove the petitioners’ vehicle from the blacklisting list. 5. Consequently, Mr. Tyagi also submits that if the petitioners’ approach the concerned Court for the cancellation of the challans in respect of the PUCC, the respondent will not oppose the cancellation of challans. 6. The writ petition, alongwith pending application, stands disposed of, binding the respondent to these submissions.

PRATEEK JALAN, J JANUARY 30, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/

W.P.(CRL) 332/2026 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Arvind Sharma and Anr. vs State of Nct of Delhi and Ors. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Prateek Jalan