Disposed¶24

Arun Bahl v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2026CONT.CAS(C)/378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt of court; Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD); unauthorised construction demolition and sealing; alleged non-compliance/wilful disobedience of order dated 20.03.2023 in W.P.(C) 4869/2018; GRAP restrictions on demolition activity; sealing action 30.12.2025; SHO P.S. Maidan Garhi cooperation; compliance affidavit within 12 weeks; unconditional apology in status report; Delhi High Court order dated 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings disposed of upon MCD's assurance of expeditious completion of remaining demolition/sealing action; SHO, P.S. Maidan Garhi directed to cooperate; MCD to file compliance affidavit within 12 weeks. ¶24

Arun Bahl Vs Gyanesh Bharti & Ors. — Contempt of Court | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was in wilful disobedience / non-compliance of the order dated 20.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 4869/2018 (directing expeditious demolition action), warranting continuation of the present contempt proceedings.

¶10

Court's answer

MCD cannot be said to be in wilful disobedience of any orders passed by this Court that would warrant continuation of the present contempt proceedings.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

On instructions, Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel for MCD, assured and undertook that remaining action on the subject-matter property shall be expeditiously taken in all respects; only certain unauthorised constructions on the ground and first floor remained, and it was assured that the said portion would also be demolished/sealed in accordance with law.

¶20

Key takeaways

The concerned SHO (P.S. Maidan Garhi, Delhi) is directed to render necessary cooperation for the demolition/sealing of the remaining unauthorised construction.ratio¶23
MCD is directed to file a compliance affidavit within a period of 12 weeks.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Sachin Datta, J.) disposed of contempt proceedings CONT.CAS(C) 378/2024 filed by Arun Bahl against Gyanesh Bharti & Ors., alleging non-compliance of the Court's order dated 20.03.2023 in W.P.(C) 4869/2018, whereby the writ petition had been disposed of with a direction that requisite demolition action against unauthorised construction be taken expeditiously and in accordance with law. Noting MCD's prior actions on 13.10.2025, 01.12.2025 and 15.12.2025, sealing programmed for 30.12.2025 (subject to GRAP restrictions), and MCD's assurance through its Standing Counsel that the remaining unauthorised constructions on the ground and first floor would also be demolished/sealed expeditiously in accordance with law, the Court held that MCD could not be said to be in wilful disobedience warranting continuation of the proceedings. The SHO, P.S. Maidan Garhi was directed to render necessary cooperation, and MCD was directed to file a compliance affidavit within 12 weeks.

¶1

$~34

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 378/2024 and CM APPLs.17217/2025, 52371/2025 ARUN BAHL .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. versus GYANESH BHARTI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. N. Balraj (SPC) along with Ms. Meghna Rao, Ms. Osheen Bhat, Advs. for Delhi Police Mr. Tushar Sannu (SC) along with Mr Umesh Kumar, Adv. for MCD Mr. Aditya Raj, Adv. for R6 to R10 Mr. Kunal Anand, Ms. Aditi Rathore, Advs. for R-11/DJB Ms. Kirti Garg, Adv. for R-12.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 10.02.2026

¶7

Vide order dated 23.12.2025 passed in the present proceedings it was noted as under:-

¶8

“3. As per the status report filed on behalf of MCD necessary action has been taken on 13.10.2025, 01.12.2025 and 15.12.2025 and necessary photographs has been placed on record alongwith the status report. It is further recorded in the status report that considering the GRAP restrictions regarding demolition and construction activity, the Department has now fixed the sealing action programmed in respect of the property on 30.12.2025.”

¶9

2. A status report dated 06.02.2026 has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) wherein it has been stated as under:-

¶10

“3. That the instant Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P(C) 4869/2018.

¶11

4. That this Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 20.03.2023 has been pleased to disposed-of the Writ Petition (C) No. 4869/2018 with the

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 12/02/2026 at 12:36:03

¶14

following main observations/ directions:-

¶15

3. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/ MCD submits that part demolition action was taken on 18.10.2022 and further demolition action is now scheduled in the present month. He, on instructions, further submits that the answering respondents would make an endeavour to take requisite action expeditiously. The statement made on behalf of the answering respondents is taken on record.

¶16

4. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the requisite demolition action be taken expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶17

5. The concerned A.E., MCD shall remain responsible to ensure that the entire demolition action is taken within time as directed above.

¶18

6. Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, learned Panel Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of the concerned SHO, P.S. Maidan Garhi, Delhi and, on instructions from SI Mohit Kumar assures the Court that all necessary assistance will be provided to respondents No.1 to 3/MCD as and when asked for.

¶19

5. That it is submitted that the answering respondent has the highest regard for the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and can never think of disobeying any orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. The orders passed by this Hon’ble High Court are being duly complied with time and again in its letter and spirit by the answering Respondent. No contempt of court or disobedience of any order has been committed wilfully, intentionally or otherwise, more specifically the aforementioned order dated 20.03.2023 as alleged. However, for the sake of abundant caution, the deponent tenders his unqualified and unconditional apology for any act/s that might, in the opinion of this Hon’ble Court be construed as giving any impression of contempt having been committed.”

¶20

It is assured and undertaken, on instructions, by Mr. Tushar Sannu, learned counsel appearing for the MCD that remaining action in respect of the subject-matter property shall be expeditiously taken in all respects. It transpires that only certain unauthorised constructions remain to be demolished on the ground and first floor of the property in question. It is further assured that the said portion of the property shall also be demolished/ sealed in accordance with law.

¶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 12/02/2026 at 12:36:03

¶23

The concerned SHO (P.S. Maidan Garhi, Delhi) is directed to render necessary cooperation for the said purpose.

¶24

In the circumstances, MCD cannot be said to be in wilful disobedience of any orders passed by this Court that would warrant continuation of the present proceedings. The present proceedings are accordingly disposed of.

¶25

Let a compliance affidavit be filed by the MCD within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶26

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶27

FEBRUARY 10, 2026/uk

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. 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 12/02/2026 at 12:36:03

Arun Bahl v. Gyanesh Bharti & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Bahl v. Gyanesh Bharti & 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

Shri Subhash Vs Delhi Development Authority DDA & Ors.

Pappu Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd. Aas Alias Kale Vs Si Ankit

Mehraz Bano Vs Shri Sanjeev Khirwar, Commissioner, MCD

Asha Sharma & Anr. Vs Prayank Sharma

Ravinder Rana Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. & Ors.

Jfc Finance (India) Limited Vs Arvind Garg Liquidator of Moser Baer Solar Ltd. & Ors.

Shishank Pal Vs Vipin Kumar Saini & Ors.

Jamia Millia Islamia Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Ors.

Pappu Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohd. Aas Alias Kale Vs Si Ankit

Surender Pal Singh Vs Ashwani Kumar

Sandeep Dahiya Vs Poorna Prajna Public School and Ors.

Dr. Prabal Pal Vs Dr. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.