MCD must exclude the protected common parking area from tenders to preserve status quo.

The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 26 May 2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (North), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Suit No. 318/09/99 (Old No. 688/99). That judgment decreed the petitioner’s suit and issued binding directions concerning the open/common parking area forming part of Triveni Commercial Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-I, New Delhi, including maintenance of status quo in respect of the area.

The petitioner contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) had subsequently issued an e-tender dated 13 July 2026 for allotment of surface parking sites, which included the disputed area. In particular, Serial No. 18 referred to Triveni Shopping Complex, Chirag Delhi, within which the area was situated.

The MCD filed a short affidavit stating that its concerned officials were unaware of the 2011 judgment and that inclusion of the area in the tender was inadvertent. The MCD further submitted that the concerned parking site would be dropped from the tender.

Whether inclusion of the open/common parking area forming part of Triveni Commercial Complex in the MCD’s e-tender dated 13 July 2026 constituted wilful disobedience of the directions issued in the judgment dated 26 May 2011.

Whether the disputed area should be excluded from the e-tender in order to give effect to the directions for maintenance of status quo.

The Court applied the principle that contempt jurisdiction requires disobedience of a binding judicial direction to be wilful, deliberate, and established on the facts; an inadvertent or bona fide administrative error, coupled with corrective action, does not by itself warrant a finding of contempt.

The Court also gave effect to the binding directions in the civil judgment dated 26 May 2011 requiring maintenance of status quo in relation to the disputed parking area.

The Court considered the petitioner’s contention that the disputed area had been included in the MCD’s 13 July 2026 e-tender despite the 2011 judgment. However, the MCD’s affidavit attributed the inclusion to the concerned officials’ lack of awareness of the earlier judgment and characterised it as inadvertent.

The Court noted the MCD’s submission that the site would be removed from the tender in compliance with the directions to maintain status quo. In light of the explanation and the proposed corrective action, the Court did not record a finding of wilful disobedience; instead, it ensured compliance by directing exclusion of the disputed area from the tender.

The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law if aggrieved by any future action or inaction of the MCD. The contempt petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.