Disposed

Sh Raj Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025W.P.(C)/12365/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to MCD to discipline a Junior Engineer allegedly for disclosing his identity as complainant over unauthorized construction. Court found petitioner was a routine complainant filing numerous complaints via his NGO, so identity disclosure claims were unsubstantiated, and declined to resolve disputed facts in writ proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sh Raj Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

¶4

W.P.(C) 12365/2025, CM APPL. 50448/2025 & CM APPL. 71339/2025 SH RAJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv. with Petitioner in person. (M: 9871221607) Email:[email protected] versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, SC for MCD M: 9315827955 Email: [email protected] Mr. Sandeep Mandar, Mr. Amit Kumar & Mr. Mahendra Gupta, Advs. M: 9811455642 Email: [email protected]

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶7

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL) :

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to hold departmental enquiry and take other legal action against a Junior Engineer of the MCD, for disclosing the identity of the petitioner to the persons who were carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction in the area.

¶9

During the course of hearing, it came to the fore that the petitioner has filed not just one complaint against any one particular property, but has been filing various complaints with respect to various properties across the city.

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Page 1 of 10

¶12

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶13

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a list of complaints filed by the petitioner with the MCD has been filed, which is reproduced as under:

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶15

Page 2 of 10

¶16

It has also come to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶18

Page 3 of 10

¶19

member of a Non-Government Organisation (“NGO”), which has now filed an application being CM No. 71339/2025 before this Court seeking impleadment. Along with the application, a list of various cases filed on behalf of the said NGO, as well as the petitioner has been filed, which is reproduced as under:

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶21

Page 4 of 10

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶23

Page 5 of 10

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶25

Page 6 of 10

¶26

This Court also takes note of the complaint dated 9^th June, 2025 filed by the petitioner pursuant to which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶28

Page 7 of 10

¶29

The said complaint as given in Hindi by the petitioner, is extracted as below:

¶30

A perusal of the aforesaid complaint dated 09^th June, 2025, shows that the said complaint had been filed by the petitioner not in his individual capacity, but as part of the NGO, under the letterhead of the NGO. 6. Further, a perusal of the aforesaid list of complaints having been filed by the petitioner, as well as the NGO with which the petitioner is attached, clearly shows that the petitioner is not a person who has filed only a particular complaint against any particular property, and that the petitioner has suffered on account of disclosure of his identity by the officials of MCD. Rather, it is apparent that the petitioner is a regular complainant and has

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶32

Page 8 of 10

¶33

been filing numerous complaints against various properties, in a routine manner, time and again.

¶34

The petitioner has been filing various complaints through himself as well as through his NGO, time and again. Thus, there is no question of any dispute as to the identity of the petitioner being disclosed. Further, the petitioner has been filing various complaints/petitions with the MCD, as well as cases before various forums. The dispute raised by the petitioner before this Court regarding disclosure of his identity is not only misplaced, but is unsubstantiated. Further, this Court would not go into any such disputed questions of facts in the writ proceedings.

¶35

This Court also takes note of the complaint dated 10^th July, 2025 submitted by the petitioner with the police, which is reproduced as under: -

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶37

Page 9 of 10

¶38

On pointed query by this Court as regards the status of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner submitted that he is not aware of the progress therein. Clearly the petitioner is not serious with regard to the said complaint made to the Police and the petitioner has not followed up with the same.

¶39

This Court shall not go into all these disputed questions of facts as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. No merit is found in the present writ.

¶40

Considering the aforesaid detailed discussion, the present writ petition along with the pending applications, is disposed of.

¶41

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶42

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/ ng

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Page 10 of 10

¶45

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

Sh Raj Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sh Raj Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S S Bhankers Assocation and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Srinivasan Ramanathan (Retd)

Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramu Vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

P.C.Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Jawahar Lal Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

M/S Anant Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Force NO.0583941 Satbir Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sangeeta Vs Hitesh Kumar

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs Inder Chawla & Anr.

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs Manish Kumar Garg & Anr.

Sanjeev Garg Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Singh and Sons Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mohd Mansoor Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.