MCD must pass expeditious orders on unauthorized construction after providing mandatory personal hearings to occupiers.

The petitioner, Pankaj Jain, filed a review petition seeking the review of an order dated October 15, 2025.

The dispute concerns unauthorized construction at property nos. 16/867 and 16/866, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

Regarding property no. 16/867, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a Demolition Order on May 7, 2026.

Regarding property no. 16/866, the MCD issued a Show Cause Notice and initiated personal hearings for the owners (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5).

The petitioner expressed satisfaction with the MCD's actions but requested a time-bound conclusion for the pending proceedings.

1. Whether the review petition maintains its urgency or necessity following the MCD's issuance of demolition orders and show cause notices.

2. Whether the court should direct a time-bound conclusion for the administrative hearings regarding unauthorized construction at property no. 16/866.

The Court applied the principles of administrative law concerning the enforcement of building bylaws and the issuance of demolition orders under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.

Specifically, it emphasized the requirement of audi alteram partem (the right to a fair hearing) before taking coercive action against property.

The Court also exercised its discretionary power to dispose of a review petition based on the consensus and satisfaction of the parties regarding subsequent administrative developments.

The Court analyzed the current status of the MCD's enforcement actions to determine if judicial intervention was still required.

For property no. 16/867, the Court noted that a Demolition Order had already been passed, satisfying the petitioner’s grievance.

For property no. 16/866, the Court reviewed the Status Report and a letter dated May 13, 2026, confirming that the MCD had initiated the inspection and hearing process.

Since Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 committed to cooperating with the inspection and attending hearings, the Court found that the statutory process was correctly in motion.

The Court refrained from deciding on the technical maintainability of the review petition, choosing instead to dispose of it based on the practical resolution provided by the MCD's actions and the respondents' undertakings.

For property no. 16/866, the Court held that the MCD is bound to pass requisite orders expeditiously and in accordance with the law after providing a due hearing to the owners.

The Court ordered that the inspection and hearing process be concluded in a time-bound manner, without passing judgment on the technical maintainability of the review petition.