Dismissed

Manjesh Singh v. Special Task Force (through Its Vice Chairman) Sh Subhasish Panda & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Oct 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1577/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for allegedly failing to act against unauthorized construction at a property, despite earlier court directions. The court found the petitioner had not approached it with clean hands, noting a pending civil suit against respondent No.4 and misleading photographs, and dismissed the contempt petition with costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manjesh Singh Vs Special Task Force (through Its… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~132

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1577/2024

¶3

MANJESH SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

SPECIAL TASK FORCE (THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN) SH SUBHASISH PANDA & ORS.

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Ajjay Aroraa and Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advs. for MCD Mr. amit Sahni, Mr. Parth Sharma and Mr. Ankur, Advs. for DDA Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Mr. Hussain Taqvi/GP, Mr. Ayush Tanwar and Mr. Rahul Bhaskar, Advs. for Delhi Police.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 03.10.2024

¶10

The petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for failing to take action against alleged unauthorized construction being carried out in the subject property contrary to the directions of this Court dated 05.09.2024.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 as also learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Delhi Police are present on advance notice. No one is present on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, unhesitatingly, this Court finds that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands.

¶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 07/10/2024 at 15:48:01

¶14

First things first, as pointed out by the learned for the respondent No.2/MCD² in paragraph (6) of the petition it is alleged that owner/builder of the has not only completed the construction but has also sold the flats to the innocent homebuyers and have allowed homebuyers to take possession of the premises by allowing them to put their belongings. A photograph is placed on the record, which would evidently show that building is still under construction, what is most objectionable is that as per the photographs which are placed on the record by the learned counsel for the respondents which are dated 18.09.2024 taken in the evening at about 5.34 p.m., it is manifestly shown that the lanterns/floors have been punctured and the premises is lying sealed.

¶15

The photographs which are shown today are taken on record and the same be got digitized. 6. The petitioner without complete information has rushed to the Court in order to settle personal scores with respondent No.4 inasmuch as it is also recorded in the order dated 05.09.2024 that he has already filed a civil suit against the occupier/owner of the property, which is still subjudice.

¶16

Hence, the present contempt petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within 30 days from today, failing which appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner for recovery of the said amount.

¶17

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶18

OCTOBER 3, 2024/ sm

¶19

2 Municipal Corporation of Delhi

¶20

Manjesh Singh v. Special Task Force (through Its Vice Chairman) Sh Subhasish Panda & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manjesh Singh v. Special Task Force (through Its Vice Chairman) Sh Subhasish Panda & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Gautam Pathak Vs Manoj Kumar Assistant Commissioner R P Cell

Krishna Kumar Meena and Ors. Vs Naveen Kumar Chaudhary and Anr.

Mr. Ravindra Nath Goel Vs Mrs. Bharti Goel & Ors.

Vikas Bansal Vs Gyanesh Bharti

Shivani Sarees Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashutosh Rathore & Anr.

Dr Poonam Gaur Vs Ashok Kumar Chairperson Scert Education & Ors.

M/S Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs SHO Ps Jyoti Nagar & Anr.

Daya Kishan Vs Sh. Govind Mohan & Ors.

Ms Gautam Pathak Vs Manoj Kumar Assistant Commissioner R P Cell

Satish Chandra & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhishek Jayaswal Vs Union Bank of India

Dr Praveen Singh Vs Dr Ashish Goyal & Anr.

Ravinder Kumar Jain Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Neena Khurana & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.