Allowed

K.D Pocket Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/16572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to reinstall a gate removed on a misconception by the end of GRAP-IV restrictions. The court also mandated a hearing with all affected parties to resolve the conflicting permissions regarding a colony gate within eight weeks pursuant to the 2007 Policy.

What did the court decide?

MCD directed to reinstall the gate within two weeks post-GRAP-IV lifting and conduct a hearing with parties within eight weeks.

K.D Pocket Residents Welfare Association… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16572/2024

¶4

K.D POCKET RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, ASC for MCD. Mr. Mohit Gupta, Ms. Anisha Gupta, Mr. Vishal Saxena, Mr. Mohit J. and Mr. Hrithik, Advocates for R-2 & 3.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R % 19.12.2024

¶9

The petitioner- Resident’s Welfare Association [“RWA”] has filed this writ petition for a direction upon respondent No. 1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”] to reinstall a gate [ Gate No. 4, near KD77, adjacent to Kohat Enclave metro station, Pitampura ] which has been removed by MCD on 08.12.2023.

¶10

It appears that the aforesaid gate was installed by the residents of the colony, and permission was granted to the RWA by communication of MCD dated 10.10.2008. 15 years thereafter, a writ petition came to be filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, who claim to be residents of the

¶11

W.P.(C) 16572/2024

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

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 03/07/2025 at 20:37:32

¶14

colony seeking removal of the gate. By an order dated 08.05.2023, their writ petition [W.P.(C) 5907/2023] came to be disposed of with a direction that the petition be treated as a representation to MCD and be disposed of within a period of three weeks.

¶15

MCD failed to dispose of the case within the time granted, which led the said writ petitioners to institute proceedings in contempt [CONT. CAS. (C) 1789/2023]. The contempt petition was disposed of on 05.12.2023, with the following directions:

¶16

“4. Mr Gupta, learned ASC accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and states on instructions that the gate is illegal and without permission. He further states that the gate will be removed within three working days and in any case not later than ten days from today.

¶17

5. Taking the statement of Mr Gupta, learned ASC on record and binding the respondent No. 1 to the same, the contempt petition is disposed of.

¶18

6. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any non action by the respondent, the petitioners are at liberty to revive the contempt petition.”

¶19

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record the permission letter dated 10.10.2008 in support of its submissions that the MCD’s position as recorded in the order dated 05.12.2023 was incorrect.

¶20

MCD has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is accepted that the subject gate was regularised by order dated 10.10.2008. The counter affidavit states that the stand taken in the contempt petition was a result of a lack of awareness of the instructing officers with regard to the grant of permission, as a result of trifurcation and subsequent reunification of MCD.

¶21

Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, learned Additional Standing Counsel for MCD, states that MCD is willing to reinstall the gate immediately at its

W.P.(C) 16572/2024

Page 2 of 3

own expense, having regard to the fact that it was removed on a misconception.

¶26

MCD is directed to do so within a period of two weeks after lifting of the Graded Response Action Plan– IV restrictions on construction. 8. The question then remains is of the implementation of the order dated 08.05.2023 passed in the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶27

As far as this aspect is concerned, MCD is directed to give a hearing to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and to the petitioner herein, and to pass necessary orders within eight weeks from today consistent with the ‘ Policy/guidelines for installation of gates for security purpose in colonies ’ dated 25.06.2007 [“Policy”]. Notice for the hearing may be given to the affected parties through learned counsel appearing on their behalf in this writ petition.

¶28

The gate, once installed, will be operated by the petitioner in accordance with the Policy.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶30

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶31

DECEMBER 19, 2024/ MR/AL/

¶32

W.P.(C) 16572/2024

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

K.D Pocket Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.D Pocket Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Creditors Welfare Association Vs Official Liquidator, Super Bazar & Ors.

C. Maheshwaran Vs Union of India & Ors.

Central Public Information Officer Upsc Vs Ajit Kumar

Dominos Pizza (Jubilant Foodworks Ltd) (Vasant Square Mall) Vs MCD and Ors.

Chegg India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs National Medical Commission & Ors.

Roshanara Club Limited & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs Manish Kumar Meena

India Tourism Development Corporation (Itdc) (Unit Hotel Ashok) Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

India Tourism Development Corporation(Idtc) Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

India Tourism Development Corporation(Idtc) Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Tek Ram through Lrs & Ors. Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Anr.

Mohd Mustakeem Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. & Anr.

Gurmeet Gill Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.