Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India and Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Orders Decided Feb 25, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1257564

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/1257564
Court: Delhi Orders High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Decided On: Feb 25, 2026
Case Number: W.P.(C)/2645/2026
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh Kumar

Advocate Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Mr. Premtosh, Mr. Sundarlal, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Mr. Manjunath, Mr. Shrey Sharma, Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Mr. Akshay Yadav

Respondent

Union of India and Anr

Excerpt

.....the impugned office order bearing s. no. 42099/csif/taj/co/admin/2026-748 dated 07.02.2026 whereby the petitioner has been transferred/relieved from taj mahal unit, agra to dchep chamera ii & iii; and/or ii. in the alternative, and without prejudice to prayer (a) above, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to forthwith revoke/cancel the impugned transfer order and allow the petitioner to continue/remain posted at taj mahal unit, agra until the treatment of his parents continue;iii. pass such other and further order(s) or direction(s) as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”4. the petitioner is, in effect, challenging his transfer from agra tochamera, himachal pradesh on the ground that his father has undergone a by-pass surgery in the year 2022 and mother has also undergone angioplasty and there are no hospitals available at chamera to undertake the treatment.5. we find that the petitioner was posted at agra in the year 2022. threeyears have gone by and as such the petitioner is required to be transferred out of agra.6. there is no dispute that chamera is a peace station. if that be so, thereasons given by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not make us to interfere with the transfer order as passed.7. the petition is dismissed. the pending application is disposed of.v. kameswar rao, jmanmeet pritam singh arora, jfebruary 25, 2026/msh

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2645/2026 CM APPL. 12867/2026 CM APPL. 12868/2026 MUKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ratnesh Sharma, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Premtosh K Mishra, CGSC, UOI, Mr. Sundarlal, AC-CISF, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Insp-CISF, Mr. Manjunath, SI-CISF, Mr. Shrey Sharma, Mr. Anubhav Upadhyay, Mr. Akshay Yadav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

ORDER

% 25.02.2026 CM APPL. 12867/2026 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2645/2026

3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

“I Issue a writ, order or direction(s) in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order bearing S. No. 42099/CSIF/TAJ/CO/Admin/2026-748 dated 07.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner has been transferred/relieved from Taj Mahal Unit, Agra to DCHEP Chamera II & III; AND/OR II. In the alternative, and without prejudice to prayer (a) above, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to forthwith revoke/cancel the impugned transfer order and allow the Petitioner to continue/remain posted at Taj Mahal Unit, Agra until the treatment of his parents continue;

III. Pass such other and further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

4. The petitioner is, in effect, challenging his transfer from Agra to

Chamera, Himachal Pradesh on the ground that his father has undergone a by-pass surgery in the year 2022 and mother has also undergone angioplasty and there are no hospitals available at Chamera to undertake the treatment.

5. We find that the petitioner was posted at Agra in the year 2022. Three

years have gone by and as such the petitioner is required to be transferred out of Agra.

6. There is no dispute that Chamera is a peace station. If that be so, the

reasons given by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not make us to interfere with the transfer order as passed.

7. The petition is dismissed. The pending application is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

FEBRUARY 25, 2026/msh

Same Court & Year Delhi Orders · 2026 Same Parties Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India and Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao,Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Manme...