Ongoing enforcement actions and subsequent statutory appeals against unauthorized construction render contempt proceedings for non-compliance with representation-deciding directions redundant.

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a Division Bench order dated 09.10.2024 in W.P.(C) 12805/2024

The original order directed the Special Task Force (STF) to expeditiously decide the Petitioner's representation dated 22.07.2024 regarding alleged unauthorized construction and encroachment on DDA land at Property No. XV/3551, Dariba Pan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi

The Petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 6 (later corrected as the relevant private respondent) raised construction without sanction plans using substandard materials

During the proceedings, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and STF filed status reports dated 03.07.2025, 09.04.2026, and 10.04.2026, detailing the booking of the property for unauthorized construction from the ground to the fourth floor and subsequent enforcement actions

1. Whether the Respondents willfully disobeyed the directions of the Division Bench to decide the Petitioner's representation and take necessary action in accordance with law.

The court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, regarding the willful disobedience of judicial orders

It further relied on the administrative obligations of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Special Task Force (STF) to regulate unauthorized construction under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the statutory right of appeal available to aggrieved parties before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD)

The Court examined the status reports submitted by the MCD and STF to determine if the representation dated 22.07.2024 had been processed as directed. The Court found that the MCD had already "booked" the subject property for unauthorized construction spanning several floors and had initiated demolition proceedings

The Court noted that the compliance of the Division Bench's order was evident from the Respondents' continuous regulatory actions and the documentation provided in the status reports

Furthermore, the Court observed that the legal process was ongoing, as Respondent No. 4 had exercised their statutory right to challenge the demolition order dated 09.09.2024 before the ATMCD. Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the authorities were actively taking legal steps and the matter was now subject to further adjudication by a specialized tribunal, there was no case for continuing contempt proceedings

The contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the MCD to ensure the complete removal of unauthorized construction in the property, subject to the final outcome of the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD)