Devendra Kumar Gupta Vs Ac Block Welfare Association (Regd.) & Anr.

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 21^st August, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 8844/2024 & CM APPL. 3460/2025, CM APPL. 8763/2025

¶5

DEVENDRA KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus

¶6

AC BLOCK WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) & ANR.

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Ms. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate for R-1 (through VC) Mr. Mukesh Gupta, SC for MCD with Mr. Sachin Singh Shahi, Mrs. Shashi Gupta, Mr. Arnav Gupta, Advocates

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶11

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent no. 2 to remove the two illegally erected gates and demolish the four pillars encroaching upon public land in AC Block, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027.

¶13

As per the facts canvassed in the petition, the petitioner is a resident of AC Block, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027, which comprises of sixtyeight houses in nine lanes. The said block has nine gates, seven of which are small, while two boom barriers have been fixed near the rest of the two gates to regulate traffic. It is submitted that besides the aforesaid, the respondent no. 1, i.e., AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.), has also installed two gates, i.e., connecting AC-33 and AC-61, and connecting AC-50 and AC-51, and four pillars on 07^th May, 2023.

¶14

It is submitted that the petitioner accordingly filed a complaint with

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶17

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 1 of 14

¶18

the Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station Rajouri Garden, dated 14^th March, 2020, for bringing to his notice the intentional and deliberate blockade of roads by respondent no. 1.

¶19

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 1399/2021, wherein, vide order dated 23^rd November, 2021, this Court had issued directions to respondent no. 2 for removal of the gates/pillars, in case sanction was not accorded by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”). Thus, in part compliance with the aforesaid order, MCD removed the two gates, but did not remove the four pillars. Subsequently, the gates were reinstalled on 07^th May, 2023, allegedly without obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner, MCD. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the contention of the MCD that subsequently, the gates in question had been regularized, and permission has been granted, is incorrect. He submits that no such permission can be granted with respect to the installation of the gates in question, as they amount to obstruction on public land.

¶21

The petitioner, who appears in person, further submits that the said gates have not been installed properly and are slanting. He submits that on account of the said gates, the life of the petitioner and other residents of the area in question are in danger, as the said gates can fall at any moment.

¶22

The petitioner, who appears in person, also draws the attention of this Court to the objections which have been filed by the petitioner to the Structural Safety Certificate filed by respondent no.1, with regard to the structural stability of the gates in question.

¶23

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, i.e., AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.), submits that subsequent to the initial

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶26

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 2 of 14

¶27

removal of the gates in question, the permission for installation of the gates in question was duly received, and the said gates have been installed in accordance with law.

¶28

She further submits that the gates in question are structurally safe, and, in this regard, upon directions of this Court, a Status Report dated 17^th January, 2025, has already been filed by MCD, which confirms the fact that the gate connecting AC-50 and AC-51 is structurally safe.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2-MCD submits that the gates installed by respondent no. 1, have been duly regularized and permission for installing the same has been granted to the respondent no. 1, i.e., AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.). He further submits that the gates in question are structurally safe, and there is no threat to the life or property of the residents of the colony in question.

¶30

He draws the attention of this Court to the various reports filed on behalf of the MCD, in this regard.

¶31

Having heard the petitioner appearing in person and the counsels appearing for the respondents, this Court notes the submission of learned counsel appearing for the MCD that the gates in question have been regularized by the MCD, as per the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, titled as “Policy/Guidelines for Installation of Gates for Security Purpose in Colonies” . Clauses 3(13) and 3(14) of the said Circular read as under:

¶32

“xxx xxx xxx

¶33

13. During the night after 11.00 p.m., gates may be closed upto 5.00 a.m. but entry and exit facility shall be made available to the residents and entry/exit shall be manned by the Watch and Ward to be appointed by the RWAs at their const .

¶34

14. Wherever gates have been provided there shall be a provision of wicket gate for easy access and entry for provision of wicket gate for easy access and entry for pedestrians.

¶35

xxx xxx xxx”

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶38

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 3 of 14

¶39

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶40

The aforesaid Sub-Clauses of the Circular clearly stipulate that the gates, which are installed in colonies, shall remain closed from 11 o’clock at night to 05 o’clock in the morning. However, the entry and exit through the said gates shall be manned by the Watch and Ward, to be appointed by the Resident Welfare Associations (“RWAs”) at their own cost.

¶41

This Court takes note of the Status Report dated 06^th August, 2024, filed on behalf of MCD, wherein it is stated as follows:

¶42

“xxx xxx xxx

¶43

6. That subsequent to grant of NOC by the department RWA of AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.) AC-3, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-27 has installed the gate between AC-33 and AC-61 and AC50 to AC-51, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-27 .

¶44

7. That after installation of gate at aforesaid site the department has issued another letter dated 03.06.2024 to the General Secretary, AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.) AC-3, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-27 where by the RWA was directed to submit the compliances made by RWA in respect of the terms and condition of the circular No. D/664/SE(P) dated 25.06.2007 and submit compliance report within 03 days. However; the said letter could not be served through Indian Speed Post and was returned back. Thereafter the same was served personally on 19.06.2024 to General Secretary of RWA. Copy of the letter dated 03.06.2024 issued to the General Secretary, AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.) AC-3, Tagore Garden, New Delhi27 is annexed herewith as Annexure-‘D’ .

¶45

8. That the reply of aforesaid letter dated 03.06.2024 which was served on 19.06.2024 was submitted by the RWA of the AC-Block, Tagore Garden, New Delhi on 24.06.2024 whereby it was mentioned that all the necessary compliances as per the aforesaid circular have been met and NOC from concerned authorities have also been obtained for the installation of the said gates. Copy of the letter dated 24.06.2024 submitted by the RWA of the AC-Block, Tagore Garden, New Delhi along with detailed report is annexed herewith as Annexure-'E' (Colly) .

¶46

9. That subsequent to submission of reply by the RWA of the ACBlock, Tagore Garden, New Delhi an inspection was made by the concerned JE(M)-I/WZ on 26.06.2024 and it was found that the necessary compliances in respect of the terms and condition of the circular No. D/664/SE(P) dated 25.06.2007 have been complied . Copy of inspection report of JE(M)-I/WZ dated 26.06.2024 is annexed

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶49

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 4 of 14

¶50

herewith as Annexure-'F' .

¶51

10. That further a letter dated 19.07.2024 has also been sent to the General Secretary, AC Block Welfare Association (Regd.) AC-3, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-27 directing the RWA that the said terms and condition of the circular No. D/664/SE(P) dated 25.06.2007 will always be maintained by the RWA. Copy of the letter dated 19.07.2024 is annexed herewith as Annexure-‘G’ .

¶52

xxx xxx xxx”

¶53

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶54

Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report clearly shows that the gates between AC-33 and AC-61, and between AC-50 and AC-51, Tagore Garden, have been installed subsequent to the grant of a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) by the MCD, to the respondent no. 1. It is also clear that the gates in question have been installed after meeting all the various compliances.

¶55

This Court further notes that the MCD has also written a letter dated 03^rd June, 2024 to the General Secretary of the respondent no. 1, clearly stating that all the terms and conditions of the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, pertaining to installation of gates, shall be complied with by them. The letter dated 03^rd June, 2024, written by Executive Engineer-(M)-I, West Zone, MCD, is reproduced as under:

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶58

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 5 of 14

¶59

Further, this Court takes note of the Inspection Report dated 26^th June, 2024, filed by the MCD, which reads as under:

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶62

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 6 of 14

¶63

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶64

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 7 of 14

¶65

Perusal of the aforesaid Inspection Report clearly shows that all the compliances of the terms and conditions, as per the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, for installation of the iron gates, are fulfilled.

¶66

This Court notes that the MCD has also written a letter dated 19^th July, 2024, wherein, permission has been granted to the respondent no. 1 for the installation of the iron gates, which shall remain subject to continued

¶67

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶68

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 8 of 14

¶69

compliance with the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, by respondent no. 1. The letter dated 19^th July, 2024, reads as under:

¶70

This Court further notes that a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) has also been issued by the Traffic Police for the installation of the gates in question, which is reproduced as under:

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶73

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 9 of 14

¶74

When the present matter was listed on 08^th January, 2025, this Court

¶75

noted the concern of the petitioner regarding the structural stability of the gate in question. Thus, the order dated 08^th January, 2025, was passed in the following manner:

¶76

“1. Matter has been heard at some length.

¶77

2. Amongst other issues, Petitioner raises question on the stability of

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶80

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 10 of 14

¶81

the gate installed adjacent to his house by RWA and submits that there is a likelihood of the pillars of the gate collapsing and causing injury to him or his family members. Learned counsels for the MCD and the RWA seriously dispute the submission with respect to the stability of the gate and the pillars.

¶82

3. MCD and the RWA will produce latest photographs of the gate in question, installed near the house of the Petitioner, on the next date of hearing.

¶83

4. List on 20.01.2025.”

¶84

Pursuant to the order dated 08^th January, 2025, an inspection was carried out by the MCD on 17^th January, 2025. Pursuant thereto, another Status Report dated 17^th January, 2025, was filed on behalf of MCD, relevant portions of which, read as under:

¶85

“xxx xxx xxx

¶86

3. That as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court order dated 08.01.2025 an inspection of the aforesaid gate was made by the concerned JE & AE of the Maintenance Division-I, West Zone/MCD on 17.01.2025. During inspection of gate installed at between house No. AC-50 & 51 , it was found that the gate connecting house number AC-50 & 51 are not in eminent danger and no cracks are visible on the pillars. Further, the movable iron gates attached with both the pillars are also in good condition and are functioning properly. The said pillars/iron gates were inspected both by opening iron gates and by closing iron gates. The photographs taken at the time of inspection are enclosed herewith as Annexure-‘A’ .

¶87

xxx xxx xxx”

¶88

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶89

A reading of the aforesaid report filed by the MCD, clearly shows that the MCD has categorically stated that the gate connecting AC-50 and AC51, is not in imminent danger, and no cracks were visible in the pillars. Further, the iron gates were found to be attached to both pillars in good condition and were functioning properly.

¶90

Along with the aforesaid Status Report, photographs of the said gate have also been filed, one of which, is reproduced as under:

¶91

Signature Not Verified

¶92

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶93

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 11 of 14

¶94

This Court is further informed that due compliance with the said Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, is being done by respondent no. 1. 26. It is to be noted that the petitioner has filed objections to the Structural Stability Certificate filed by respondent no. 1, with regard to the gates in question. However, considering the various documents on record, including, the Inspection Report of the MCD, it is manifest that the objections filed by the petitioner with regard to the structural stability of the gates in question, are unfounded, and cannot be accepted.

¶95

Signature Not Verified

¶96

In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is apparent that the gates, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, are existing after due permission from the concerned authorities.

¶97

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 12 of 14 Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶98

Further, the said gates are structurally safe and in good condition, posing no threat of falling down. Additionally, the said gates are in full compliance with the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007, issued by the MCD, with regard to the installation of gates.

¶99

This Court will not go into a roving inquiry into the correctness of the conclusion reached by the MCD that the gates in question are structurally safe and in compliance with the Circular dated 25^th June, 2007. While holding that the Court is only concerned with the manner of the decisionmaking, and not with the decision itself reached by an administrative body, the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Council, Neemuch Versus Mahadeo Real Estate and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 738 , held as follows:

¶100

“xxx xxx xxx

¶101

13. In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the High Court of judicial review of an administrative action. Though, there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said issue, the law laid down by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] lays down the basic principles which still hold the field. Para 77 of the said judgment reads thus : (SCC pp. 677-78)

¶102

“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the

¶103

question of legality. Its concern should be:

¶104

1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers?

¶105

2. Committed an error of law,

¶106

3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,

¶107

4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,

¶108

5. abused its powers .

¶109

Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative

¶110

Signature Not Verified

¶111

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶112

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 13 of 14

¶113

action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under :

¶114

(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.

¶115

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

¶116

(iii) Procedural impropriety .

¶117

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secy. of State for Home Department, ex p Brind [R. v. Secy. of State for Home Department, ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696 : (1991) 2 WLR 588 (HL)] , Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases, the test to be adopted is that the court should, „consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention‟.”

¶118

14. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion that the decision-maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision-maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision-making process . It is also equally well settled that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process.

¶119

xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)

¶120

Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion herein above, no merit is found in the present writ petition. The present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is dismissed.

¶121

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶122

AUGUST 21, 2025/ SK

¶123

Signature Not Verified

¶124

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 5.08.2025 09:26:31

¶125

W.P.(C) 8844/2024 Page 14 of 14

Devendra Kumar Gupta v. Ac Block Welfare Association (Regd.) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Gupta v. Ac Block Welfare Association (Regd.) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Parwez Alam Alias Parvez Alam Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board & Ors.

M/S Sanjay Enteprises Vs Additional Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi North

Nitin Gupta Proprietor Shree International Vs the Union of India & Anr.

Sumit Gupta Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Sopan Restaurant Vs Union of India & Ors.

A.R. Institute of Management and Technology Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Jatinder Pal Singh Kohli & Anr. Vs the Commissioner MCD of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Pal Sharma & Ors. Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delh

Manish Tiwari & Ors. Vs Amit Yadav

Hansraj Goswami Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Zahir Abbas Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Mahender Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Deepak Madan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.