Disposed

Karawal Nagar Road Market Welfare Association through Its Authorized Representative and Vice Pre v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026CONT.CAS(C)/265/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging MCD breached a writ direction to serve show cause notice before any anti-encroachment drive. Court noted show cause notices had been issued before the RCC drain works, and notices for encroachment removal stood stayed in a pending civil suit; finding no disobedience warranting orders, it disposed of the petition leaving liberty to seek remedies.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioners left at liberty to seek remedies in law for any future non-compliance by MCD.

Karawal Nagar Road Market Welfare Association… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13^th July, 2026

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

¶5

KARAWAL NAGAR ROAD MARKET WELFARE ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND VICE PRESIDENT SURENDRA PAL SINGH AND ORS & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Tejas Singh and Mr. Saurabh Dagar, Advs. (Through VC)

¶7

versus

¶8

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Ms. Meherunnisa Anand Jaitley and Mr. Aryan Tyagi, Advs. for R- 1/MCD Mob: 9717100486

¶10

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

¶11

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance and disobedience of the directions, as contained in the order dated 16^th January, 2026, passed in W.P.(C) 612/2026 .

¶12

By way of order dated 16^th January, 2026, the following directions had been issued:

¶13

“xxx xxx xxx

¶14

3. In the last order passed on 31^st August 2022, in W.P.(C)

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

¶19

12590/2022, this Court had disposed of the writ petition on the basis of the statement made by counsel for the MCD that if any demolition action is carried out, the same would be preceded by a show cause notice to the petitioners.

¶20

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD appearing on advance notice submits that at this stage, no antiencroachment drive has been contemplated in the said area. In the event the respondent/MCD were to initiate an antiencroachment drive, they would give a show cause notice to the petitioner and would act in accordance with the law.

¶21

xxx xxx xxx”

¶22

Thus, perusal of the aforesaid order shows that there were directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) that, in case, any antiencroachment drive is to be initiated by the MCD, they would issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioners, and act in accordance with law.

¶23

This Court notes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD that in the present case, requisite Show Cause Notices were issued on 08^th May, 2026, to the petitioners herein, before the MCD initiated the work.

¶24

She submits that the work, which the MCD has initiated, was not in the nature of anti-encroachment drive, but for construction of Reinforced Cement Concrete (“RCC”) drain, as the shops of various petitioners were situated next to a drain.

¶25

This Court notes the submissions made on behalf of the respondentMCD, as recorded in the order dated 16^th February, 2026, passed in the present proceedings, in the following manner:

¶26

“xxx xxx xxx

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as no action has been taken by the respondent [Municipal Corporation of Delhi

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶30

Page 2 of 9

¶31

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

¶32

(MCD)] in wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the aforesaid order dated 16.01.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 612/2026.

¶33

7. It is submitted that all that has been done in the concerned area is to ensure that the work for construction of RCC drain (over a water body) is done in accordance with law. It is submitted that the said work is required to be completed pursuant to an award of a tender vide work order dated 11.11.2025.

¶34

8. It is submitted that the said work is in the nature of critical infrastructural work which is time-bound and is required to be completed within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the work order.

¶35

9. It is emphasized that it is only in connection with the work in question that the necessary construction activities have been undertaken. The same is only in the nature of a temporary impediment to access to the petitioner’s shop/s in the area in question.

¶36

xxx xxx xxx”

¶37

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶38

This Court also takes note of the short affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD, the relevant portions of which, read as under:

¶39

“xxx xxx xxx

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶42

Page 3 of 9

¶43

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026 Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶45

Page 4 of 9

¶46

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026 Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶47

Page 5 of 9

¶48

xxx xxx xxx”

¶49

This Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the MCD that against the Show Cause Notices dated 08^th May, 2026, the petitioners herein have already filed a Civil Suit, bearing No. 266/2026 , titled as Premwati and Ors. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

¶50

This Court further takes note of the submission made on behalf of MCD that vide order dated 06^th June, 2026, passed in the aforesaid civil suit bearing No. 266/2026, the said Show Cause Notices dated 08^th May, 2026, issued by the MCD, have been stayed, and MCD has also been restrained from carrying out any encroachment removal programme for the Lal Dora

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶53

Page 6 of 9

¶54

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

¶55

Properties , as mentioned therein.

¶56

The order dated 06^th June, 2026, as passed in the said civil suit bearing No. 266/2026, reads as under:

¶57

“xxx xxx xxx

¶58

Signature Not Verified

¶59

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026 Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶60

Page 7 of 9

¶61

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026 Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶62

Page 8 of 9

¶63

xxx xxx xxx”

¶64

Accordingly, it is apparent that the MCD had sought to initiate action, pursuant to their project for covering of the drain.

¶65

Further, action for removal of encroachment was sought to be taken pursuant to Show Cause Notices dated 08^th May, 2026, which already stand stayed.

¶66

Thus, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. However, needless to state, in case, the petitioners are aggrieved by any non-compliance on behalf of the MCD in future, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek their remedies, in accordance with law.

¶67

Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.

¶68

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶69

JULY 13, 2026 /SK

¶70

Signature Not Verified

¶71

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 6.07.2026 16:41:50

¶72

Page 9 of 9

¶73

CONT.CAS(C) 265/2026

Karawal Nagar Road Market Welfare Association through Its Authorized Representative and Vice Pre v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karawal Nagar Road Market Welfare Association through Its Authorized Representative and Vice Pre v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & 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

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

Mithlesh Solanki Vs MCD & Ors.

Mohd. Shafir Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Sumit Kumar Vs Deepali

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.

Darshna Malik & Ors. Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Anr.

Rajeshwar Dayal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs Ms v Vidyavathi

Manoj Kumar Vs Govind Mohan & Anr.

N.C. Bakshi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nikhat Parveen@Khusboo Khatoon Vs Rafique@Sillu