Disposed¶21

Ms. Prabha v. Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Jul 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition against MCD for alleged non-compliance with order dated 18.11.2024 in W.P.(C) 15906/2024; demolition and sealing of unauthorised construction; inaccurate averment re seventh floor (property actually ground plus two floors); private dispute with respondent no.3; STF route not availed; petition disposed of with liberty to revive; Prabha v. Ashwani Kumar & Ors.; Delhi High Court; Anish Dayal, J.; decided 15.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive it; MCD's undertaking recorded that further steps are being taken to seal/demolish the unauthorised portions of the property; order to be uploaded on the Court website. ¶21

Ms. Prabha Vs Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether MCD has complied with (i.e., is not in contempt of) the order dated 18 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15906/2024 regarding demolition/sealing action at the property. +2 more

¶14

Court's answer

MCD represented that demolition action has been taken and is further scheduled and that it is not non-compliant with the order dated 18 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15906/2024; the Court took into account MCD's undertaking that further steps are being taken to seal/demolish the unauthorised portions of the property.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's averment that the impugned property had been raised up to the seventh floor was inaccurate; a photograph taken on the day of hearing showed the property to be ground plus two floors, though with some attempted construction above the second floor.

¶20

Key takeaways

There was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had exercised the right granted to her to move the Special Task Force (STF).ratio¶19
In view of the directions in the order dated 18 November 2024 (civil remedies and STF route available to the petitioner) and MCD's undertaking to seal/demolish the unauthorised portions, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive it.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anish Dayal, J.) disposed of a contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 1028/2025) by Ms. Prabha alleging non-compliance by MCD with the order dated 18.11.2024 in W.P.(C) 15906/2024. MCD submitted that demolition action had been taken and was further scheduled, and undertook to continue steps to seal/demolish the unauthorised portions of the property. The Court found the petitioner's averment that the property had been raised up to the seventh floor inaccurate, a photograph taken that day showing ground plus two floors with some attempted construction above the second floor. Noting that the underlying matter was a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3 (respondent no.4 in the writ petition), for which civil remedies and the STF route had been granted by the earlier order and which the petitioner had not shown she had availed, the Court disposed of the petition with liberty to revive it.

¶1

$~82

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1028/2025

¶4

MS. PRABHA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mohd. Babar, Advocate..

¶6

versus

¶7

MR. ASHWANI KUMAR AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Chopra, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Neeraj Kumar and Ms. Khushi, Advs. Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC for R-2 SHO P.S. Kalindi

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R % 15.07.2025

¶10

CM APPL. 41201/2025 ( Exemption )

¶11

Exemptions are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶12

Applications stand disposed of.

¶13

CONT.CAS(C) 1028/2025

¶14

Counsel for Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘ MCD’ ) states that demolition action has been taken and is further scheduled, and they are not non-compliant of the said order of 18^th November 2024 in W.P. (C) 15906/2024 .

¶15

Besides, he contends that there is a private dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.3 ( respondent no.4 in Writ Petition ), which the Court has also noted that it is a private dispute, and they can take appropriate

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 18/07/2025 at 11:46:41

¶18

civil remedies in this regard.

¶19

The Court has further granted right to the petitioner to move the Special Task Force (‘ STF’ ), and there is nothing on record to state that this has been done by petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for MCD points out that there is an inaccurate averment made by petitioner in paragraph 6 of the petition, stating that ‘ the impugned property has been raised up to the seventh floor ’. A photograph has been shown, taken today, showing that the property is of ground plus two floors, though it does show that there is some attempted construction above the second floor as well.

¶21

Keeping into account the directions passed in order dated 18^th November 2024, wherein the petitioner has the right to take civil remedies for private dispute and approach the STF as well, and taking into account the undertaking made by counsel for MCD that further steps are being taken to seal/demolish the unauthorized portions of the property, this petition is being disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition.

¶22

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶23

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶24

JULY 15, 2025/RK/ tk

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 18/07/2025 at 11:46:41

Ms. Prabha v. Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Prabha v. Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Gupta Vs Shubhankar Ghosh & Ors.

Shaktikumar Agrawal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Aarif Vs Sh. Vijary Kumar

M/S Ktc Events and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Government of National Territory, Delh & Ors.

K M P Yadav Vs R C Jain & Ors.

Narendra Gupta (Huf) Vs Mr. Subhash Aggarwal

Satish Kumar Jain Vs Brahm Prakash & Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs UOI and Ors.

Govind Prasad Gupta Vs Shubhankar Ghosh & Ors.

Shaktikumar Agrawal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Aarif Vs Sh. Vijary Kumar

Ashutosh Sharma Vs I.B. Rani IPS & Anr.

S C Wadhwa and Sons HUF Vs Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors.

Curling Association of India Vs P.T. Usha