Petitioner sought mandamus for action against respondents over alleged encroachment and nuisance. Police status report found only an altercation with no cognizable offence. Court held Article 226 cannot resolve such trivial, recurring issues and left petitioner free to approach the Special Task Force or Executive Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~37
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through: Ms. Shivangi Kumar and Ms. Neha Rao, Advs. for R-1. Mr. Narender Bhadari, Mr. Himanshu Chaudhary, Mr. Lakshay Chauhan and Mr. Sparsh Sharma, Advs. for R- 2 & 3. Mr. Abhishek Yadav, SPC for UoI. With Sub Insp. Gajal Chugh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 03.09.2024
under:-
“a. Issue a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ to Respondent No. 1 to initiate an appropriate action against the respondent no 2 & 3 for not taking any action qua the complaints as filed by the petitioner time to time against the respondent no 2 & 3.
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus and pass an direction in the nature to the respondent no 4 to take necessary steps for illegal acts of the respondent no 2 & 3, which is also encroachment of livelihood or the Right to Life and Liberty of petitioner and her family members, for which Hon’ble High Court has power under Article 226, and carry out panel proceedings and monitor this case closely while the respondent no 1 as well as respondent no 4 works on it, so that through this exemplary case, right direction could
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 15:36:10
be given to the petitioner humanity Incidentally, and credibility of the Indian Constitution is upheld.
c. In the alternative the direction be given to the respondent no 1 & 4 to treat the present writ as a final representation of the petitioner and decide the course of action against the respondent no 2 & 3 and their associates within the time bound period and report to this court accordingly.”
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2024/p
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/09/2024 at 15:36:10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ under Article 226 lies to direct action against neighbours over encroachment and abusive language when police found no cognizable offence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anita Jain
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Respondents 2 & 3
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
