Telecom Watchdog tried to quash FIR No. 35/2021 and seek criminal contempt through a miscellaneous application in a writ petition already disposed of in August 2024. The Delhi High Court held the application not maintainable because the Court became functus officio after disposal. Any challenge to the FIR must be filed afresh under Article 226, Section 482 CrPC, or Section 528 BNSS, and contempt requires strict compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The application was dismissed without affecting the petitioner’s right to initiate proper proceedings.

Legal issue

Whether a miscellaneous application seeking (i) quashing of proceedings arising from FIR No. 35/2021 and (ii) initiation of suo motu criminal contempt, was maintainable after the writ petition W.P.(C) 10621/2020 had been finally disposed of on 09.08.2024; specifically, whether the High Court was functus officio and whether the petitioner’s remedies lay instead under Article 226/Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 BNSS, and in compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Brief facts

Telecom Watchdog filed W.P.(C) 10621/2020 in June 2020 as a PIL challenging DoT’s award of contracts via CSC e-Governance (CSC SPV) without tender; notice issued on 18.12.2020. During pendency, FIR No. 35/2021 (IPC Sections 380, 411, 120B) was registered alleging that internal DoT note-sheets annexed by the petitioner via an additional affidavit, were unlawfully accessed/transmitted without RTI or authorization. A Section 41A CrPC notice was issued to the petitioner’s Secretary on 18.08.2021, prompting CM APPL. 29426/2021 seeking suo motu contempt; notice on that application was issued on 02.09.2021. On 09.08.2024, the writ and pending applications were withdrawn/disposed with liberty to file fresh proceedings on a new cause. Subsequently, BNSS Section 35(3) notices dated 27.10.2025 and 08.11.2025 were issued to the Secretary to appear before the Investigating Authority. The petitioner filed CM APPL. 72474/2025 in the disposed writ seeking quashing of proceedings pursuant to FIR No. 35/2021 and initiation of suo motu contempt, alleging interference with administration of justice.

Judgment

The Court dismissed the miscellaneous application as not maintainable, holding that once W.P.(C) 10621/2020 was finally disposed of on 09.08.2024, the Court became functus officio. Post-disposal miscellaneous applications are maintainable only to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, or in rare cases to clarify/modify executory directions rendered impossible by subsequent events. Fresh causes of action cannot be litigated through a miscellaneous application in disposed proceedings; the appropriate course is to institute fresh proceedings. The Court relied on Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3677, which endorsed Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 313, and on State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92, explaining the doctrine of functus officio and the limited scope for post-disposal intervention under Section 152 CPC. On the substantive relief sought, the Court clarified that quashing FIR proceedings must be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, Section 528 BNSS, rather than by a miscellaneous application in a closed writ. It further noted that, unless quashed, the Investigating Authority has a statutory duty to investigate and file a final report under Section 173 CrPC Section 193 BNSS. As to the request for suo motu criminal contempt, the prayer was not part of the application’s prayer clause; additionally, initiation of criminal contempt at the instance of a party requires compliance with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (including written consent of the notified Law Officer, Standing Counsel (Criminal), Delhi), and there were no pending proceedings to anchor suo motu action. Consequently, CM APPL. 72474/2025 was dismissed for non-maintainability, with a caveat that the dismissal is confined to maintainability and will not prejudice any fresh proceedings the petitioner may initiate before a competent forum.

Read the offcial order/judgement here

Case Title

Telecom Watchdog through its Secretary Mr. Vikram Mittal v. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Telecommunications & Ors.

Neutral citation - 2025:DHC:10854-DB

Date

Judgment reserved: 01 December 2025

Judgment pronounced: 05 December 2025

Bench

Hon’ble the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela