Delhi High Court (Dharmesh Sharma, J.), Order dated 19.05.2025 — CONT.CAS(C) 234/2025 / REVIEW PET. 222/2025 (Janhit Sewa Samiti (Regd.) through its President v. Vijay Kumar Singh & Ors. / MCD): On the applicant-petitioner's application for recalling of the order dated 03.03.2025 passed in the contempt case, learned counsel for respondent/MCD reported that, on complaints lodged at the petitioner's behest, appropriate action had been taken against a total of 18 properties in Delhi in accordance with law. Finding that an enquiry was needed to ascertain the petitioner's underlying objectives and to ensure the process of law is not misused or abused for ulterior motives, the Court — acting in terms of the order of a Co-ordinate Bench in Sudeep Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi (W.P.(C) 10794/2015, dec. 23.11.2015), the same dictum as followed in Pratap Singh Parmar v. DDA (W.P.(C) 11441/2021, dec. 19.12.2023), and in view of the observations of a Division Bench in Ms. Preeti v. MCD (W.P.(C) 8771/2024, dec. 01.07.2024) — directed the President and Secretary of the petitioner association to file affidavits within four weeks disclosing: (i) members' occupations and education; (ii) sources of income/earnings of each member with certified copies of bank accounts for the last two years; (iii) petitions filed by the petitioner in the past five years (PIL or otherwise); (iv) prosecutions withdrawn or matters settled with opponent parties concerning alleged unauthorised construction/encroachment on public land and the terms thereof; (v) distance between members' houses and the houses where unauthorised construction is alleged; and (vi) any unauthorised construction by members or construction otherwise than as per sanctioned plans. The affidavit of Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Chaudhary, through whom the present appeal was filed, was specifically required within the stipulated time. Copies of the petition were ordered supplied to counsel for MCD and DDA, at liberty to reply within six weeks. The matter was re-notified for 18.08.2025; the request to recall the 03.03.2025 order itself was not decided at this hearing.
