Disposed

Mohd. Sultan v. Ankit Kumar Pandey & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Nov 2024CONT.CAS(C)/1824/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought initiation of contempt proceedings for non-compliance with an order to stop construction. After hearing that construction had ceased and a notice was issued, the court allowed withdrawal with liberty to file again.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as not pressed; withdrawal permitted with liberty to file a fresh petition if the situation so arises.

Mohd. Sultan Vs Ankit Kumar Pandey & Ors. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CONT.CAS(C) 1824/2024 & CM APPL. 67080/2024 MOHD. SULTAN .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

ANKIT KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Abhinav Singh with Mr. Praveen Kumar Kaushik, Advocates for respondent No.3. Ms. Uma Prasuna Bachu, SPC for respondent Nos.4 and 5.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 19.11.2024

¶11

Petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt for wilful disobedience of order dated 05.11.2024, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 15407/2024.

¶12

The above said order would clearly indicate that though the MCD had stated before the learned Single Judge that the property had been booked and a show-cause notice had already been issued to the concerned owners/occupants and if required, a demolition order would be passed in accordance with law within four weeks. It was also stated before learned Single Judge by learned counsel for the MCD that if construction was still going on, MCD would issue a stop-work notice

¶13

CONT.CAS(C) 1824/2024

¶14

¶15

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 21/11/2024 at 12:19:09

¶16

within a period of three days.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the order was dated 05.11.2024 but the construction went on till 17.11.2024.

¶18

Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent-MCD has shown one notice dated 05.11.2024 addressed to the concerned SHO, asking him to take requisite action and to get the unauthorized construction stopped immediately.

¶19

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly, submitted that as on date, no construction is going on over the property in question.

¶20

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that she may be permitted to withdraw the present contempt petition, with liberty to file the same again, if situation so arises.

¶21

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of as not pressed. Liberty, as prayed, is granted.

¶22

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶23

NOVEMBER 19, 2024 st

¶24

CONT.CAS(C) 1824/2024

¶25

¶26

Mohd. Sultan v. Ankit Kumar Pandey & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sultan v. Ankit Kumar Pandey & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M S Ajay Engineering Works Vs Praful Jain

Jatinder Kumar Wadhwa & Anr. Vs Subhasish Panda & Anr.

Manish Vs Shilpa

Flamagas , S a & Anr. Vs Shiban Ahmed Alias Shiban Anzar

Shfiqur Rahman Kidwai Association and Another Jamia Millia Islamia Vs Prof Nazim Husain Al- Jafri

Dilip Kumar Vs Sh. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

Rajnesh Vs Gyanesh Bharti IAS & Ors.

Vipin Kumar Gupta Vs Shri Krishna Mohan Uppu & Anr.

M S Ajay Engineering Works Vs Praful Jain

Jatinder Kumar Wadhwa & Anr. Vs Subhasish Panda & Anr.

Manish Vs Shilpa

Rajiv Aggarwal Vs Shri Debadatta Chand & Anr.

Shivakant Singh Vs Deep Public School & Ors.

Rafat Jahan Vs Bank of Baroda & Ors.