Tauqir Alam Vs Commissioner MCD & Ors.

¶1

$~16 & 17

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 18^th September, 2025

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 TAUQIR ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Adv. (Through VC) Mob: 9810799985 & 8368020095 Email: [email protected]

¶5

versus

¶6

ASHWANI KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, ASC-MCD with Mr. Rishabh Mittal, Adv. Mob: 9811188892 Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr.Umar Hashmi, Adv. for R-4 Mob: 9999900412 Email: [email protected] Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohish Arora and Mr. Amit Biduri, Advs. for R-6 Mob: 9811976576 Email: [email protected] Mr. Tauqir Alam, SI Nishant Nagar Mob: 9958096877 17 + W.P.(C) 9022/2025 TAUQIR ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Adv. (Through VC) Mob: 9810799985 & 8368020095 Email: [email protected]

¶7

Signature Not Verified

¶8

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 1 of 14

¶9

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶10

versus

¶11

COMMISSIONER MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, ASC-MCD with Mr. Rishabh Mittal, Adv. Mob: 9811188892 Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC and Mr. Rahul Mourya, Adv. for R-4 & 5 Mob: 9810103680 Email: [email protected] Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohish Arora and Mr. Amit Biduri, Advs. for R-6 Mob: 9811976576 Email: [email protected]

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 to 5, to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction undertaken by respondent no. 6 in property bearing no. G-66, 40 Foota Road, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi , admeasuring 100 square yards, constructed by respondent no. 6.

¶14

Today, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) has handed over copy of a Status Report/Action Taken Report, which is taken on record.

¶15

As per the Status Report of the MCD, requisite action has been taken against the property in question. The relevant portions of the Status Report of the MCD, reads as under:

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶17

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 2 of 14

¶18

“xxx xxx xxx

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 3 of 14

¶21

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶23

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 4 of 14

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶25

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 5 of 14

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶27

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 6 of 14

¶28

xxx xxx xxx”

¶29

Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report shows that requisite action has been taken by the MCD on the property in question.

¶30

This Court records the statement by learned counsel appearing for the MCD that action was taken against the property yesterday, i.e., 17^th September, 2025, and is also continuing today, i.e., 18^th September, 2025. 6. Along with the Status Report, the MCD has also filed photographs, one of which is reproduced as under:

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶32

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 7 of 14

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station, Shaheen Bagh has also handed over copy of a Status Report, which is taken on record. The Status Report filed on behalf of the SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh, reads as under:

¶34

“xxx xxx xxx

¶35

xxx xxx xxx”

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶37

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 8 of 14

¶38

Thus, learned counsel appearing for the SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh submits that assistance was duly given to the MCD, at the time of taking action against the property in question.

¶39

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that the petitioner herein is an extortionist and a blackmailer. He has handed over to this Court, copies of orders passed before the Division Bench, to submit that the petitioner, i.e., Tauqir Alam has filed the present petition in his own name. He further submits that the said Tauqir Alam has also formed a Non-Government Organization (“NGO”) by the name of „ Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha ‟. He submits that the said NGO has been filing petitions in the name of the petitioner herein, i.e., Tauqir Alam, as well as through its purported Vice-President, Nusratullah Khan.

¶40

The list of the cases filed by the petitioner/his NGO of which he is a member, are as follows:

¶41

(i) W.P.(C) 1497/2023 , titled as “ Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha (NGO) through its Executive Member Tauqir Alam Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. ”

¶42

(ii) W.P.(C) 6378/2023 , titled as “ Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha (NGO) through its Vice President Nusratullah Khan Versus The Commissioner & Ors.”

¶43

On pointed query of this Court, learned counsel appearing for the SHO, PS Shaheen Bagh, upon instructions from the Sub-Inspector (“SI”) Mr. Nishant Nagar, who is present in Court, submits that the residence of the petitioner, as per the details given in the Memo of Parties is approximately two and a half kilometers from the property, which is subject matter of the present writ petition.

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 9 of 14

¶46

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶47

This Court notes that in the Memo of Parties, the residential address of the petitioner, is stated as follows:

¶48

R/o House No.291, Basti Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-I, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.

¶49

It is seen that the present writ petition has been filed seeking action against unauthorized construction in the following property:

¶50

G-66, 40 Foota Road, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi - 110025 .

¶51

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner is staying two and a half kilometers away from the premises in question. Thus, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is being violated. This Court in various petitions had already stated that writ petitions with regard to unauthorized construction shall be entertained only on behalf of the parties, whose rights with respect to light, air, ingress and egress, etc., are being violated.

¶52

Thus, this Court in the case of Satish Kumar Tomar Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1383 , wherein, the petitioner had no relation or connection to the property where unauthorized construction was alleged, and had come to the Court with unclean hands and ulterior motives, held as follows:

¶53

“xxx xxx xxx

¶54

11. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530, another Coordinate Bench of this Court took note of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for relief such as the one sought in the present petition. The learned Judge observed as follows:—

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 10 of 14

¶57

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶58

“15. Though unauthorized illegal construction, which is becoming rampant, cannot be countenanced however, I am of the view that a party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction of this court. I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed. ”

¶59

12. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly does not have any connection with the property in question. The petitioner has further failed to show as to which fundamental or legal right of his is being affected by any alleged construction activity carried out in the subject property. It is quite apparent that the present petition has not been filed for enforcement of any fundamental or legal right, but rather for some motivated reasons.

¶60

xxx xxx xxx”

¶61

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶62

Clearly, no fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner are being affected by the unauthorized construction in the property in question, especially when the said petitioner does not even reside in the vicinity of the subject property.

¶63

This Court further takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 that, respondent no. 6 has been receiving calls for extortion from the petitioner herein through common sources.

¶64

This Court in a number of petitions has already deprecated the conduct of parties, wherein, writ petitions against unauthorized constructions are filed with the sole motive to extort money. The process of this Court is solemn, which is to be resorted to, only for the purposes of seeking justice before this Court. However, the solemn process of this Court cannot be used by blackmailers for the purposes of extorting money from the persons who are undertaking unauthorized constructions.

¶65

While on the one hand, strict action has to be taken against the

¶66

Signature Not Verified

¶67

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 11 of 14

¶68

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶69

unauthorized construction, at the same time, this Court will not aid and assist any unscrupulous person with a view to extort money from the persons who are raising such unauthorized construction, and who have no relation to the unauthorized construction in the subject property. Thus, this Court in the case of Azad Market RWA (Regd.) Versus The MCD and Ors . , vide order dated 07^th August, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 13856/2024 and connected matters, emphasised upon taking strict action against parties who are filing cases for unauthorized construction to extort and blackmail people. Thus, it was held as follows:

¶70

“xxx xxx xxx

¶71

34. The present is a clear case of suppression of material facts. The party invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court ought to come with clean hands and in no way can attempt to mislead the Court in that regard. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29^th July, 2022 in W.P.(C) 11285/2022, titled as ‘New Rise Foundation Regd. Charitable Trust Versus Municipal Corporation and Ors.’, dealt with a similar matter wherein an NGO filed cases in relation to unauthorized construction, and it was found that the said NGO was suppressing facts and was found to be approaching the Court with unclean hands. Thus, the Court held as follows:

¶72

“xxx xxx xxx

¶73

5. It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.

¶74

6. The suppression of facts has been admitted before this Court and it is a settled proposition of law that a person who does not come with clean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. The Petitioner otherwise also wants a roving enquiry to be done based upon some photographs and there is no other evidence brought on record to arrive at a conclusion that the structure in question is an unauthorised construction

¶75

xxx xxx xxx

¶76

10. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that when a party approaches a Court, he must place all facts before the Court without any reservation and in case there is suppression of material facts,

¶77

Signature Not Verified

¶78

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 12 of 14

¶79

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶80

the writ petition deserves to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the matter.

¶81

xxx xxx xxx”

¶82

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶83

xxx xxx xxx

¶84

36. In the present case, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner, i.e., Azad Market RWA (Regd.), through its General Secretary Mr. Anil Lodhi, has abused and misused the process of this Court by filing petitions in relation to unauthorized construction under the garb of social work whilst using the particulars of an unregistered NGO to further their cause, which on the face of it, are riddled with oblique motives. The petitioner, despite being a stranger to the proceedings, filed these petitions and when called upon, the petitioner is found to have suppressed material facts, and therefore, has approached this Court with unclean hands .

¶85

37. This Court also takes note of the facts, as already noted hereinabove, that Mr. Anil Lodhi, was found to be involved in cases of impersonation and extortion of money. Further, this Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the private respondents that Mr. Anil Lodhi, General Secretary of Azad Market RWA (Regd.), has been approaching their clients for the purpose of extorting money from them. These facts are alarming and shocking, which disclose the deplorable conduct of the petitioner in filing cases for extorting money from people, by misusing and abusing the process of this Court. On the one hand, the Court has to deal with cases of unauthorized constructions strictly with an iron hand; at the same time, the Court has to ensure that the process of the Court is not misused by anyone in order to extort money from the persons undertaking such construction. A proceeding before a Court is a solemn process for furthering the cause of justice, and not for aiding unlawful objectives of certain individuals .

¶86

xxx xxx xxx”

¶87

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶88

This Court notes that similar to the case of Azad Market RWA (Supra) , the petitioner herein has also adopted the modus operandi of filing petitions in the name of an NGO. The said practice being adopted by unscrupulous litigants in matters of unauthorized construction exhibits a

¶89

Signature Not Verified

¶90

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 13 of 14

¶91

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

¶92

concerning trend. Litigants which have no relation to a property, are using untoward approaches to extort or blackmail persons who are raising unauthorized constructions.

¶93

Accordingly, this Court notes that in the present case the requisite action has already been taken by the MCD and the police against the unauthorized construction existing in the property in question. At the same time, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has no concern with the unauthorized construction in question, as the residence of the petitioner is approximately two and a half kilometers from the premises in question. 22. Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court and the Court is satisfied with the action having been taken by the Statutory Authorities. 23. However, considering the submissions made before this Court, cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, payable to Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust („A/c No. 15530210002995, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch Address: Delhi High Court, IFSC: UCBA0001553‟).

¶94

The Registry of this Court is further directed that whenever any writ petition against any unauthorized construction is filed by Tauqir Alam or by Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha (NGO), copy of this Order shall be attached to the said petition and be brought to the notice of the Court, whenever such petitions are listed in future.

¶95

With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶96

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶97

SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/ SK

¶98

Signature Not Verified

¶99

CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025 Page 14 of 14

¶100

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:01:14

Tauqir Alam v. Commissioner MCD & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tauqir Alam v. Commissioner MCD & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sanghthan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Aman Malik Advocate Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nafeesa Begum Vs the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Mr. Anil Kumar Goel Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi 10 and Ors.

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Prem Colour Chem Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Sarpal Vs the High Court of Delhi

Shanti Amar Singh College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Naraina Jan Kalyan Sudhar Sanghthan Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mamta Verma Vs Municipal Corporation Delhi & Anr.

Sushil Khatter & Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Abdullah Rasheed Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd. Asif Vs Mr. Parveen Kumar & Ors.

Tauqir Alam Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.