Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/14467/2026 of PUSHPENDRA SINGH PARMAR Vs PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT/GENERAL SECRETARY ICSI on 29 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: September 29th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010470992026 + W.P.(C) 14467/2026 PUSHPENDRA SINGH PARMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yashashvi Virendra, Mr.Jay Wadhwa, Advocates. versus PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT/ GENERAL SECRETARY ICSI .....Respondent
$~101
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: September 29th, 2026
CNR No. DLHC010470992026
+
W.P.(C) 14467/2026
PUSHPENDRA SINGH PARMAR
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Yashashvi
Virendra,
Mr.Jay Wadhwa, Advocates.
versus
PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT/
GENERAL SECRETARY ICSI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr.
Sandeep
Chatterjee,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. By the present petition, the petitioner, in essence seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action on the representations made by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner’s case, as discernible from the pleadings is that the petitioner was an employee of one UC Web Mobile Private Company. It is the petitioner’s case that after working for a small period, the petitioner learnt that the said company was involved in various anti national activities which included hacking of the IRCTC system, alleged ignition of riots between religious communities, activities pertaining to cyber terrorism and the like. It is further the petitioner’s case that the said company wrongfully obtained copy of confidential emails of the petitioner through undisclosed sources and misused the same to harass the petitioner by filing a contempt case against the petitioner.
3. It is thus the petitioner’s case that a representation was sent by Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:21:19 Signature Not Verified him to the respondent thereby seeking an inquiry against UC Web Mobile Private Company for illegally obtaining the petitioner’s confidential emails. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved that no action or response was sent by the respondent authorities to the petitioner.
4. As is manifest from a bare perusal of the record, the controversy arises substantially out of the petitioner’s dispute and longstanding grievances against M/s. UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd. Through the present petition, the petitioner thus seems to seek a direction for adjudication of a matter which concerns the petitioner’s individual grievance against a private party.
5. It is pertinent to note that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary in nature and is not intended to provide a forum for ventilating personal disputes or for achieving collateral purposes against an adversary. The jurisdiction of this Court thus cannot be invoked merely because a representation by a litigant has not yielded the action so desired.
6. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in the present petition.
7. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse against M/s. UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd., in accordance with law. AMIT MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 DU Signed By:SHIKHA SEHGAL Signing Date:29.09.2026 20:21:19 Signature Not Verified