Subsequent remedial action for recurring encroachments does not establish wilful contempt.

The petitioner association had obtained an order dated 6 August 2025 directing the competent authority to consider its complaint about encroachments and take such action as warranted by law, with expedition.

The MCD and Delhi Police subsequently conducted a joint anti-encroachment drive on 12 November 2025, removing the encroachments; the association acknowledged that action.

After encroachments allegedly returned, the association complained to the authorities and initiated contempt proceedings, alleging inaction and wilful disobedience of the earlier order.

The MCD reported that it had written to the SHO seeking necessary action.

The SHO stated that 11 FIRs had been registered against encroachers and that police action was continuing.

1. Whether the respondents wilfully or contumaciously disobeyed the order dated 6 August 2025 by failing to prevent or remove subsequent encroachments.

2. Whether further directions or contempt proceedings were warranted in light of the respondents’ subsequent steps.

Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, provide for the High Court’s jurisdiction to punish contempt and for punishment for contempt, respectively.

The relevant order of 6 August 2025 required the competent authority to consider the complaint and take appropriate action warranted by law, with expedition; it did not express a view on the underlying dispute.

The judgment applied the principle that contempt requires wilful or contumacious disobedience of a court direction.

Sections 344(2) and 475 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the cited police standing order were referred to in the parties’ submissions concerning coordination and enforcement responsibilities, but no distinct ruling on their interpretation was made.

No precedent was cited.

The Court noted that the respondents had carried out a joint anti-encroachment drive after the writ order, and that the petitioner itself acknowledged the removal of encroachments.

Although encroachments later recurred, the MCD and police had initiated further action, including the MCD’s letter to the SHO and the registration of FIRs.

In those circumstances, the Court found no wilful or contumacious disobedience of the original direction; the recurrence of encroachments did not, on the record before it, establish contempt.

The petition was disposed of.