Assessment bills issued without statutory procedure must remain in abeyance pending consideration of objections.

The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of the Delhi High Court’s order dated 12 May 2026 in W.P.(C) 6420/2026, whereby the respondents had been directed to provide him, by e-mail, extracts from the assessment list for Assessment Year 2026–2027 concerning specified properties.

The petitioner contended that, despite the order attaining finality, the respondents failed to provide the extracts, thereby preventing him from filing objections under the statutory procedure.

He further submitted that the NDMC had proceeded to finalise the assessment list and issue a bill dated 27 May 2026 without following Sections 70 and 71 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (“NDMC Act”).

During the contempt proceedings, the respondents’ counsel stated that the order dated 12 May 2026 had not been brought to the notice of the concerned NDMC officials, while the petitioner disputed that assertion.

The respondents nevertheless handed over the relevant assessment-list extracts to the petitioner during the hearing.

Whether the respondents had wilfully disobeyed the High Court’s order dated 12 May 2026 by failing to provide the petitioner with the specified assessment-list extracts for Assessment Year 2026–2027?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to file objections to the assessment-list extracts and require the NDMC to follow the procedure under Section 70 of the NDMC Act before issuing a final assessment?

Whether the bill dated 27 May 2026, issued without compliance with the Court’s directions and the statutory procedure, was required to be kept in abeyance?

The Court applied the procedural safeguards under Sections 70 and 71 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, which require compliance with the statutory assessment procedure and provide the affected person an opportunity to submit objections before finalisation of the assessment.

It also applied the principle that a clear and mandatory judicial direction must be complied with by the concerned authority; however, the Court did not record a final finding of wilful contempt after the respondents supplied the assessment-list extracts during the proceedings.

The Court further directed that any final assessment must be issued only after following the due procedure prescribed under the NDMC Act.

The Court noted that the original direction to provide the assessment-list extracts was unequivocal, and that the petitioner had asserted non-compliance despite the order having attained finality.

Although the respondents claimed that the order had not been communicated to the concerned NDMC officials, the petitioner disputed this explanation.

Since the extracts were handed over during the contempt proceedings, the immediate non-compliance was remedied.

The Court therefore enabled the petitioner to file objections within ten days and required the NDMC to consider them in accordance with Section 70, followed by a fresh decision, preferably within four weeks.

Given that the bill dated 27 May 2026 had allegedly been issued without following the statutory procedure and the Court’s earlier directions, the Court preserved the petitioner’s statutory remedy by directing that the bill remain in abeyance pending completion of the lawful assessment process.

Instead, it accepted the respondents’ production of the assessment-list extracts, granted the petitioner ten days to file objections, and directed the NDMC to duly consider those objections and follow the procedure under Section 70 of the NDMC Act.

The NDMC was directed to pass appropriate orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks, and to issue the final assessment only after following due process.

The bill dated 27 May 2026 was ordered to be kept in abeyance, and the contempt petition, along with the pending application, was disposed of.