Dismissed¶25

Dhanraj and Ors. v. Mukesh Vats and Anr.

Delhi HC22 Sept 2025CONT.CAS(C)/1728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 11 and 12; Delhi High Court; CONT.CAS(C) 1728/2024; Dhanraj v. Mukesh Vats; Amit Sharma J; order dated 12.02.2024 in W.P.(C) 2013/2024; direction to dispose of representation dated 30.05.2023; speaking order dated 19.09.2025 by Dy. Director South Zone-I DDA; petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to pursue remedies; pending applications disposed; no finding of contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner granted liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law with respect to the speaking order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the Dy. Director, South Zone-I, Delhi Development Authority; pending applications, if any, disposed of. ¶25

Dhanraj and Ors. Vs Mukesh Vats and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a notice of contempt should issue against the contemnors for failure to comply with the order dated 12.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 2013/2024, which directed disposal of the representation dated 30.05.2023 within six weeks.

¶13

Court's answer

Leave was granted to the petitioner to withdraw the present contempt petition, with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law with respect to the speaking order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Dy. Director, South Zone-I, Delhi Development Authority.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

¶25

Key takeaways

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (AMIT SHARMA, J.), CONT.CAS(C) 1728/2024, order dated 22.09.2025 — Contempt petition by Dhanraj and Ors. against Mukesh Vats and Anr. under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying for issuance of a contempt notice and committal to civil prison for alleged non-compliance with the order dated 12.02.2024 in W.P.(C) 2013/2024, wherein respondents no. 1 and 2 were directed to dispose of the representation dated 30.05.2023 within six weeks. On 22.09.2025, counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the representations had been decided by speaking order dated 19.09.2025 of the learned Dy. Director, South Zone-I, Delhi Development Authority. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law with respect to that speaking order. Leave was granted; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of. The Court made no adjudication on whether contempt had been committed.

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 1728/2024

¶4

DHANRAJ AND ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Sunil Chauha, Adv. versus

¶6

MUKESH VATS AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel for GNCTD with Mr. Abhimanyu, Adv. Ms. Chand Chopra, Mr. Shivam Bansal, Advs. for R-2.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

¶9

O R D E R % 22.09.2025

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petition under Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts

¶12

Act, 1971 seeks the following prayers: -

¶13

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that a notice of contempt may please be issued to the contemnors foer contempt of the order dt. 12.02.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) 2013/2024 and they be directed to purge the contempt in accordance with law. The contemnors may further be sent to civil prison in order to purge the contempt for not following the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court nay deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the contemnors.”

¶15

Vide order dated 12.02.2024 in W.P.(C) 2013/2024, the following directions were passed: -

¶16

“4. Respondents no. l and 2 are directed to dispose of the representation dated 30.05.2023 within six weeks from today. The

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 25/09/2025 at 12:23:08

¶19

same would be without prejudice to rights and contentions of respondents no. l and 2.

¶20

The petition is disposed of in above terms. The pending application is also disposed of.

¶21

Needless to state that the petitioners would have right to challenge the same in accordance with law.”

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 submits that vide the speaking order dated 19.09.2025, the aforesaid representations have been decided. Copy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law with respect to the aforesaid order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Dy. Director, South Zone-I, Delhi Development Authority.

¶24

Leave granted.

¶25

The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of.

¶26

Pending applications if any also stand disposed of.

¶27

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶28

SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/ kr

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 25/09/2025 at 12:23:08

Dhanraj and Ors. v. Mukesh Vats and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj and Ors. v. Mukesh Vats and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Shikha Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Srivastava

Pooja Tokas Vs Minicipal Corporation of Delhi (through Its Commissioner) and Ors.

S3G Technology Llc Vs Sourcetrace Systems India Private Limited & Ors.

Pandit Madhusudhan Purohit Shastri Vs Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Yuvraj Bagga Vs Bhawana Bagga

Aman Chaudhary Vs Palak Walia

Pandav Nagar Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs Sanjay Arora & Ors.

Shambhu Thakur Vs the Entrepreneurs

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Shikha Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Srivastava

Shagufta Feroz and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Mr Aman Nath Vs Mr Surender Kumar Srivastava and Ors.

Shagufta Feroz and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.