Pending regularization applications filed by misrepresentation cannot indefinitely forestall court-ordered demolition of unauthorized constructions.

The Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order dated 18.11.2022, which directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take expeditious action against unauthorized construction and encroachment at Flat No. C-8/8233, Vasant Kunj.

Despite the MCD’s status reports confirming the booking of the property under the DMC Act and the passing of a demolition order on 21.06.2022, substantive action remained pending.

An intervenor (occupant of the flat) moved CM 17859/2026 seeking a stay on demolition, claiming a pending regularization application; however, the MCD revealed that the application was filed only after the intervenor made the statement in court.

1. Whether the respondent's delay in executing the demolition order, despite several assurances to the court, constitutes willful disobedience under contempt jurisdiction.

2. Whether a regularization application that is not being "seriously pursued" or contains uncured defects can indefinitely stay the removal of unauthorized construction directed by the court.

The Court primarily applied the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, specifically Sections 343 and 344(1) regarding the booking of unauthorized construction and Section 349 regarding vacation notices for demolition.

The court also exercised its contempt jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its previous directions issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, upholding the principle that administrative delays and "inaccurate statements" by parties cannot be used to bypass definitive judicial mandates.

The court observed that the MCD had repeatedly failed to take substantive action despite the unauthorized status of the property being admitted since 2022.

Justice Sachin Datta scrutinized the intervenor's conduct, noting that a stay was obtained on 23.03.2026 based on an "inaccurate statement" regarding a pending regularization application that was actually filed two days later.

The court reasoned that the removal of illegal structures cannot be kept in abeyance indefinitely due to a regularization application that suffers from "serious defects" and is not being diligently pursued.

Consequently, the court held that the MCD is bound by a strict timeline to prevent an "egregious breach" of judicial directions.

If rejected or not processed due to shortcomings, the MCD must demolish the unauthorized construction within the subsequent two weeks.

The Executive Engineer was directed to oversee implementation, the MCD was ordered to file a compliance affidavit within eight weeks, and failure to adhere to this timeline would be construed as a further egregious breach of court directions.