$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6867/2018, CM APPL. 79764/2025 ANIL KOHLI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Kohli, Mr. Mohd. Shariq & Mr. Rishi Vohra, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, SPC with Mr.

Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra & Ms. Poonam Shukla, Advocates for UOI.

Mr. Yashpal Rangi, Advocate for R-

2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026 CM APPL. 79763/2025

1. The above-captioned writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16^th July, 2024, whereby Respondent No. 2 was directed to conclude the inquiry proceedings against the Petitioner expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of six months from the date of the said order.

2. Since the inquiry has not been concluded within the stipulated time, Respondent No. 2 has filed the present application seeking extension of time to complete the inquiry proceedings. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the inquiry is presently underway, is being conducted expeditiously, and is likely to be concluded within the next 30 days. He further submits that the delay in conclusion of the inquiry is also attributable to the Petitioner, who, according to him, unnecessarily sought supply of a copy of the charge-sheet, despite the same having already been furnished.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, disputes these submissions and contends that the delay is entirely attributable to the Respondents and not to the Petitioner. He further submits that Respondent No. 2 has repeatedly sought extensions of time and that the present application is the fourth request of such nature.

4. The Court has considered the aforenoted submissions. It is evident that the Applicant has, in fact, been repeatedly seeking extension of time. It is also a matter of concern that by order dated 28^th May, 2025, this Court had rejected an earlier application seeking extension of time. Respondent No. 2 assailed the said order in L.P.A. No. 498/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to Respondent No. 2 to seek review of the order dated 28^th May, 2025. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed Review Petition No. 435/2025, which was disposed of by order dated 26^th September, 2025, with the following observations:

‘6. This review petition is filed on behalf of the Review Petitioner under Order 47 Rules 1and 2 CPC lor review of order dated 28.05.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court.

7. Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner undertakes that the departmental enquiry against the Respondent shall be concluded positively within a period of five weeks from today in continuation of the order passed on 16.07.2024 and under no circumstances further extension shall be sought.

8. Accordingly, review petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification in order dated 28.05.2025.’

5. The aforesaid order clearly records an undertaking on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that no further extension of time would be sought. Despite the same, Respondent No. 2 now contends that certain circumstances have arisen necessitating a further extension of time.

6. Considering that the earlier extension was granted only in review of the order dated 28^th May, 2025, the present application, though styled as one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in substance amounts to seeking a review of the said order.

7. Accordingly, list this application before the Bench of Hon’ble Ms.

Justice Jyoti Singh on 10^th February, 2026.

SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 27, 2026/hc