Courts cannot issue mandamus directing a municipality to investigate or discipline its officials.

The Appellant owned a property in Janakpuri where the MCD alleged unauthorised construction on the Fourth Floor.

After a demolition order and related notices, the Appellant challenged the notices before the ATMCD. An earlier vacation notice mistakenly referred to a Fifth Floor; the MCD acknowledged the error, and the High Court directed it to issue a fresh notice and refrain from coercive action in the meantime.

The Appellant then sought an MCD enquiry into allegations that officials had failed to inspect the site, fabricated or failed to verify notices, and demanded illegal gratification. The learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, and she appealed.

Whether the learned Single Judge erred by failing to address the Appellant’s request for an enquiry into the conduct of MCD officials and by instead considering the legality of the construction or related enforcement action.

Whether the erroneous reference to a Fifth Floor and the MCD’s actions concerning the adjoining property warranted a direction for an enquiry or established mala fide, differential, or selective treatment.

The Court stated that it would not direct the MCD to conduct an enquiry or initiate disciplinary proceedings against its officials, and that the decision whether to enquire into the allegations was within the MCD’s prerogative.

It also held that a difference in the nature or stage of enforcement action against neighbouring properties, without more, does not establish differential or selective treatment warranting the relief sought.

The Court treated the appeal as concerning the requested enquiry, not the legality of the construction or enforcement action, which was before the ATMCD.

The MCD had acknowledged and corrected the mistaken reference to the Fifth Floor, so that error alone did not establish mala fide intent.

The Court declined to prescribe how the MCD should consider the Appellant’s allegations or to compel an enquiry or disciplinary action.

It also found that the adjoining property had been booked and that the MCD had requested police action; the asserted difference in enforcement stages did not, by itself, prove selective treatment.

All pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.