Dismissed

Smt. Rajni Garg v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Aug 2026W.P.(C)/12605/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(C) 12605/2024, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking action against a property in Karol Bagh alleged to be dangerous. The Court held that based on the MCD's status report stating the property was not in a dangerous condition, no direction could be issued. The petition and applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and pending applications stood closed with no direction issued.

Smt. Rajni Garg Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010592692024 + W.P.(C) 12605/2024 & CM APPL. 25911/2026, CM APPL. 52542/2026

¶4

SMT. RAJNI GARG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Vohra, Ms. Simran Uppal and Ms. Yashika Sachdeva, Advocates. versus

¶5

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel MCD with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr. Amaan Khan, Advocates for MCD Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Divya Mehta, Advocates for R-4 to R-9 and R-12 Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Ms. Prachi Dutta and Ms. Tanvi Sharma, Advocates for R-10

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶7

O R D E R % 10.08.2026

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to respondent/MCD to take action as per law qua the property bearing No.2120, Khasra No.492-493, Block-J, Gali No.58, Naiwala, Karol Bagh,

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

W.P.(C) 12605/2024

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 12/08/2026 at 11:32:47

¶13

New Delhi-110005 (‘subject property’).

¶14

It is the contention of the petitioner that property is in a dangerous condition.

¶15

The private respondents had filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) 2176/2019, W.P.(C) 2217/2019 and W.P.(C) 3062/2019 before this Court which were disposed of vide order dated 9^th July, 2024 (Annexure P-12 to the writ petition). In the aforesaid writ petitions, an interim order was passed on 6^th March, 2019 directing status quo .

¶16

The status report has been filed on behalf of respondent/MCD.

¶17

Vide judgment dated 9^th July, 2024, the notice issued by MCD under Section 348 and 349 of the DMC Act on 28^th February, 2019 was set aside as redundant and liberty was given to the respondent/MCD to proceed in accordance with law. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order dated 9^th July, 2024 is set out below:-

¶18

In the status report filed on behalf of MCD, it is been stated that though the property looks old and dilapidated, it was not in a dangerous condition. Paragraph 11 of the said status report is set out below:-

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

W.P.(C) 12605/2024

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 12/08/2026 at 11:32:47

¶23

In view of the aforesaid status report filed on behalf of respondent/MCD, no action can be directed to be carried out on the ground that the subject property is dangerous.

¶24

The writ petition along with pending applications stands closed.

¶25

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶26

AUGUST 10, 2026 ds

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

W.P.(C) 12605/2024

¶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 12/08/2026 at 11:32:47

Smt. Rajni Garg v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajni Garg v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Gupta Vs Additional Commissioner Cgst Delhi West Commissionerate & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sh Mahipal & Ors.

Saraswati Printers Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, State Tax Ward 91, Zone 8 Delhi and Ors.

Shriram Ved & Ors. Vs India Trade Promotion Organization & Anr.

Rajiv Saxena & Anr. Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Manpar Icon Technologies Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato Ward 53 Zone 3 Delhi and Ors.

R Bhargava and Associates Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Naveen Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax Delhi & Anr.