Srinivaspuri Residents Withdraw Drain Appeal Citing Threats, While Delhi HC Takes Suo Motu Cognisance Of Waterlogging And Illegal Construction

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellants’ application to withdraw the LPA should be allowed.

The court held

The LPA was dismissed as withdrawn.

It also directed

The Court took suo motu cognisance of the Sriniwas Puri Drain, directed that the IDMC inspection report, the DJB and other authorities’ status reports, and the appeal record be placed in a newly numbered writ petition titled Re: Suo Moto Sriniwaspuri Drain, and appointed counsel for the appellants as amicus curiae.

The new writ petition was listed for 17 December 2026; the next hearing date in the LPA was cancelled.

01Facts

Residents of Sriniwas Puri sought, in W.P.(C) 10459/2021, directions concerning the maintenance, cleaning, repair and reconstruction of local drains, as well as an inquiry into expenditure on their upkeep.

pp. 2–3

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition after taking on record reports from relevant authorities.

p. 3

In the appeal, the Court ordered an inspection under the Integrated Drain Management Cell (IDMC); an inspection report was filed, and a detailed order followed.

p. 3

The appellants then sought withdrawal of the appeal, stating that they faced continuing threats from local residents.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellants’ application to withdraw the LPA should be allowed.

pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether the Court should take suo motu cognisance of the condition and wider impact of the Sriniwas Puri Drain despite dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn.

p. 3

03Law Applied

The appellants sought withdrawal under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which they cited as the basis for their application.

p. 2

The judgment identifies no other statutory provision, precedent or specific legal test as the basis for the Court’s suo motu action.

p. 3

It records the Court’s decision to take cognisance in view of the drain’s wider impact, including waterlogging and illegal construction around the drain.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court allowed the appellants to withdraw the appeal in light of their stated decision not to press it and the threats they reported.

p. 3

However, the reports before the Court disclosed concerns extending beyond the appellants’ individual claims, including the drain’s effect on waterlogging and illegal construction upon and around it.

p. 3

The Court therefore treated those matters as warranting separate suo motu proceedings, rather than ending judicial consideration of the issues with the appeal’s withdrawal.

p. 3