$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 07.04.2026 + LPA 219/2026 DEVANAND SHUKLA .....Appellant Through: Appellant-in-person Versus CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal and Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)

1. This intra-court Appeal has been filed questioning the order dated 16.06.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No.2130/2026 whereby the Appellant’s Writ Petition was dismissed in view of order dated 31.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 15753/2025 filed earlier by the Appellant while observing that if the Appellant has any grievance against the Central Vigilance Commission (“CVC”), he shall be at liberty to approach the said authority.

2. The Appellant had lodged various vigilance complaints on the online portal of the CVC regarding alleged misconduct and vigilance-related issues involving public authorities and regulated entities, including matters connected with the Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), the Insurance and Regulatory and Development Authority of India (“IRDAI”) and the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”). These complaints were registered as CVC Complaint Nos.112564/2025, 112565/2025 and 112566/2025 (“Complaints”).

3. According to the Appellant, instead of conducting any enquiry, the CVC merely forwarded the Complaints to departmental authorities and treated them as closed without recording any speaking order and without communicating any reasons to the Appellant. The Appellant has alleged that the closure of the Complaints was contrary to CVC Master Guidelines on Complaint Handling and Vigilance Examination, which mandate fair, transparent and reasoned scrutiny wherever prima facie material indicates misuse of authority or continuous dereliction of duty.

4. The Appellant had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 15753/2025 before this Court seeking similar relief as sought in the Writ Petition in relation to the Complaints. Vide order dated 13.01.2026, the said writ petition was disposed of. The order dated 13.01.2026 is extracted hereunder:

“1. The petitioner in the instant petition prays for the following relief:-

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith assume direct control and supervision over the Petitioner’s vigilance complaints namely Complaint Nos. 112564/2025, 112565/2025, and 112566/2025 and to immediately commence an independent and impartial inquiry therein;

b. Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper the interest of justice.”

2. Looking at the nature of the controversy and the fact that the petitioner, who is suffering with 40% permanent locomotor disability, was appearing in person, the Court vide order dated

04.11.2025 appointed Mr. Udit Gupta, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

3. Today, when the matter is called out, Mr. Gupta has submitted a note in relation to the controversy and the issues involved herein.

4. The facts would reflect that the petitioner had availed a loan linked with insurance coverage between June, 2024 to August, 2024. The petitioner appears to have met with a serious accident on 05.12.2024 resulting in 40% permanent locomotor disability, as reflected in the UDID Certificate dated 20.02.2025, which was updated on 28.05.2025. The grievance and the claim of the petitioner essentially relates to a lis against insurance companies namely, Acko General Insurance, Care Health Insurance and SBI General Insurance.

5. The petitioner submits that his claim of insurance has wrongly been rejected. There has been a grave illegality and irregularity by various officials in handling the petitioner’s grievance. The petitioner, therefore, claims to have approached CPGRAMS portal, BIMA Bharosa Portal, Ombudsman office amongst various other authorities.

6. The nature of the complaints and the details have been succinctly captured by Mr. Gupta in his note, which are ext