Disposed

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Inspector Shailender Singh

Delhi HC29 Apr 2026CONT.CAS(C)/692/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petitions sought enforcement of orders on removal of encroachments and unauthorised vending in Samaypur Badli. The Court found MCD was taking action and no contempt was made out, directed continuous drives, made the SHO personally responsible, permitted sealing of shops allowing vendors, allowed impleadment applications as intervenors, and continued the writ petition with status reports a

What the court decided

AI extract

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Inspector Shailender Singh — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~38, 44 & 53

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 ASHOK KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus INSPECTOR SHAILENDER SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC. ~44 + W.P.(C) 425/2025 ASHOK KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Beenashaw N Soni, Standing Counsel, MCD with Ms. Ann Joseph, Adv. (M: 9810046611) Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. (M: 9810382091) versus

¶4

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

¶5

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Anand Jindal and Ms. Mansi Jindal, Advs. for applicant Insp Shailender Singh. Mr. Manish Kaushik, Adv. for Applicant. Mr. Dhananjai Rana, CGSC for Respondent No. 3/Delhi Police ~53 + CONT.CAS(C) 757/2026 ASHOK KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus SANJEEV KHIRWAR, COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL

¶6

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶7

Page 1 of 8

¶8

This is a digitally signed order.

¶9

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 04/05/2026 at 11:46:45

¶10

CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Appearance not given.

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

¶12

O R D E R % 29.04.2026

¶13

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶14

CM APPL. 28801/2026 in CONT.CAS(C) 757/2026

¶15

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

¶16

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & CONT.CAS(C) 757/2026

¶17

CONT.CAS(C) 757/2026 is a contempt petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking implementation of the order dated 17th January, 2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 425/2025 .

¶18

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 is a contempt petition filed by the Petitioner under Sections 11 and 12 read with Section 2(B) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking implementation of the orders dated 11th March 2025, 8th September, 2025, 20th November, 2025, 18th December, 2025 and 17th January, 2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 425/2025.

¶19

The present case relates to the Samaypur Badli area where there was unauthorised encroachment by certain shopkeepers and unauthorised vendors were also blocking the road.

¶20

In respect of the same, in W.P.(C) 425/2025 vide order dated 17^th January, 2026, it was directed as under:

¶21

“ 5. Today, the Applicants have been heard in this matter. The grievance of the Applicants is that while the order of the Court dated 11th March, 2025, as

¶22

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶23

Page 2 of 8

¶24

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 04/05/2026 at 11:46:45

¶25

also the subsequent order dated 18th December, 2025, was primarily directed towards illegal encroachments by vendors on public spaces, the PWD has conducted a demarcation last week and has issued notice dated 15th January, 2026 to the Applicants for demolition to be carried out on 19th January, 2026. 6. Mr. Jain, ld. Senior Counsel, appearing for the Applicants has placed some photographs on record, as per which a number of homes are likely to be demolished in the area, since, as per the demarcation report, the measurement of the road is being increased beyond the existing road.

¶26

7. Further, on behalf of some of the Applicants, it is submitted that they have sale deeds of their respective properties, which date back to more than 30-40 years and some of the Applicants are also stated to be paying house tax on their properties.

¶27

8. Ld. Counsel for the PWD and MCD are present as well. As per Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel for the PWD, pursuant to the orders of this Court which have directed action against unauthorised construction and encroachment, a demarcation exercise has been carried out in the last one month. Pursuant to the demarcation, PWD has issued notice dated 15th January, 2026 to the Applicants and various other parties, for removal of the unauthorised encroachment and unauthorised construction.

¶28

9. On behalf of the Petitioner, it is submitted that all these Applicants have made unauthorised construction on public land and the right of way of the local residents ought to be protected. Hence, such construction/encroachments deserve to be demolished.

¶29

10. After hearing ld. Counsels for all parties,

¶30

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶31

Page 3 of 8

¶32

¶33

it becomes clear that the demarcation exercise is of a recent nature and the notice has only been issued on 15th January, 2026.

¶34

11. Accordingly, it is directed that the PWD shall examine the present applications and in respect of each of the Applicants, the PWD shall give its stand in the form of a table.

¶35

12. In addition, the PWD shall also place on record the recent demarcation report prepared by it by the next date of hearing as part of their status report.

¶36

13. Until the next date of hearing, no demolition shall be undertaken of the structures which are already built in the form of homes/shops belonging to the Applicants. However, any unauthorised vendors or hawkers etc. shall not be permitted to vend by the PWD or MCD.

¶37

*14.* If	*there*	is an	y *una*	*uthorised*
*encroachmen*	t, *apart*	*from*	*the* co	*nstructed*
_premises of _	*the App*	_licants, _	_in the _	*form of*
*extension of s*	*hops/hom*	*es on the*	*drain or*	*on public*
_roads, etc., _ *removed.*	_all such _	*encroa*	_chments _	*shall be*

¶38

15. Let copies of any documents of title or ownership, which the Applicants are relying upon, including their respective sale deeds, be supplied to Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel for PWD by Monday morning, i.e. 19th January, 2026.”

¶39

As can be seen from the above order, the Court had directed that apart from the constructed premises, the extensions of shops and homes on the drains as also on the public road shall be removed. In addition, a direction was issued to the Public Works Department (hereinafter, ‘PWD’ ) and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’ ) to ensure that no

¶40

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶41

Page 4 of 8

¶42

¶43

unauthorised vendor or hawker is permitted to vend in the said area. It is implementation of these directions that is sought in these contempt petitions. 8. The MCD is stated to have filed a status report dated 28^th April, 2026 which has been handed over today wherein it is stated as under:-

¶44

“2. That in furtherance of the earlier report, in order to remove the temporary encroachment/vendors from the railway station Samaypur Badli to G.T. Road, encroachment removal action was fixed on 22.04.2026 & 27.04.2026. A letter dt. 10.04.2026 was issued to SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli for providing adequate Police Force/Outer Force to remove the temporary encroachment at Railway Road, Samaypur Badli. Copy of the letter is enclosed herewith as "Annexure A". During temporary encroachment removal action various articles seized, the list of the articles is enclosed herewith as "Annexure B". The photographs taken during encroachment removal action are enclosed herewith as "Annexure C Colly". After encroachment removal action, the letter dt. 22.04.2026 written to SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli to keep strict vigil of the area. Copy of letter is enclosed herewith as "Annexure D".

¶45

3. That further action was fixed on 27.04.2026 and removed the temporary encroachment, rehri, board, Leigh machine, two cycles etc. The list of the seized articles is enclosed herewith as "Annexure E". The photographs taken during encroachment removal action are enclosed herewith as "Annexure F Colly". After taking action, letter dt. 27.04.2026 was written to SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli to keep strict vigil of the area, clear from temporary encroachment. Copy of the letter is enclosed herewith as "Annexure G”.

¶46

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶47

Page 5 of 8

¶48

¶49

That it is pertinent to mention here that during the encroachment drive, it is noticed that the owners of the shops create an encroachment by placing their goods in front of their shops and also allow other vendors to sell their articles in front of their shops. Whenever raid team starts an temporary encroachment removal drive, the owners of the shops keeps their goods in their shops and after drive again they allow the vendors to encroach upon footpath. The department is under process to issue notices to the owners of the shops for temporary encroachments by themselves as well as allowing other vendors in front of their shops.”

¶50

The Court has also seen the photographs which are attached with the status report handed over by the MCD which show that certain demolition and removal of encroachment drives have been conducted by the MCD in the said area.

¶51

The grievance of the Petitioner is that certain vegetable vendors and other persons, who encroach the road and footpath, continue to come back at their respective sites once the encroachment drives are concluded by the officials of the MCD.

¶52

Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners also emphasizes that the status report filed by the Delhi Police clearly shows that there is a difficulty being faced even by the police officials as the vendors, who are removed by the police officials, come back to vend though the same is a ‘no vending zone’.

¶53

Heard. Firstly, the process of removal of unauthorised vendors and hawkers is a continuous process and in the opinion of this Court, considering the status report filed by the MCD, it cannot be said that there is contempt of the various orders passed by this Court, as action is being taken by the MCD.

¶54

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶55

Page 6 of 8

¶56

¶57

Nevertheless, it is emphasized again that there has to be continuous drives undertaken by the authorities for removal of unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised vendors/hawkers in the area. It is made clear that SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli would be personally responsible to ensure that the vendors who are removed by the MCD do not come back and start vending, that too by creating traffic jams in the area. The photographs which have been placed on record by the Petitioner show that there is blocking of traffic on the road due to such unauthorised vending. Samaypur Badli being a ‘no vending zone’ as per the MCD itself, vending is not permissible in the said area.

¶58

At this stage, Ms. Soni, ld. Counsel for the MCD has highlighted that shopkeepers have themselves allowed the vendors and hawkers to sit in front of their shops.

¶59

In order to make removal of the unauthorised vendors effective, it is now directed that if any shopkeeper has given permission to any unauthorised vendor or hawker, the shop of the said shopkeeper will be permitted to be sealed by the MCD.

¶60

16 In addition, the SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli shall ensure that the beat constable of the said area undertakes regular supervision in order to remove any unauthorised vendors including vegetable vendors and fruit vendors.

¶61

With these observations, the contempt petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶62

CM APPL. 80029/2025, CM APPL. 3275/2026, CM APPL. 3378/2026, CM APPL. 4641/2026 , CM APPL. 6425/2026 (Impleadment) in W.P.(C) 425/2025

¶63

All the shopkeepers/residents who have filed these applications are all

¶64

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶65

Page 7 of 8

¶66

¶67

permitted to intervene in this matter.

¶68

However, they need not be made parties in the present petition as the same would cause further delay. The applications are disposed of in these terms.

¶69

W.P.(C) 425/2025 & CM APPL. 13457/2026, CM APPL. 3276/2026, CM APPL. 3379/2026, CM APPL. 4640/2026, CM APPL. 6426/2026 & CM APPL. 13426/2026

¶70

Let an updated status report be filed by the SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli and by the MCD by the next date of hearing. 21. The demarcation report is stated to have been filed by the PWD which is not on record.

¶71

Let the status reports filed by the MCD, PWD and SHO P.S. Samaypur Badli be brought on record by the next date of hearing. Delay in filing the same, if any, is condoned.

¶72

In respect of the status report filed by the PWD, the shopkeepers who are represented by the clients of Mr. Ashish Jain, ld. Counsel, are free to file their response along with any video which they wish to rely upon by the next date of hearing.

¶73

Let responsible officials of the PWD and MCD remain physically present on the next date of hearing in order to assist the Court.

¶74

List for hearing on 10^th August, 2026.

¶75

Interim order(s), if any, shall continue subject to above directions.

¶76

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶77

MADHU JAIN, J.

¶78

APRIL 29, 2026/ ys/ck

¶79

CONT.CAS(C) 692/2026 & connected matters

¶80

Page 8 of 8

¶81

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Inspector Shailender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. Inspector Shailender Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Mehta Vs Gnctd of Delhi and Ors.

Bindusar Vs Mr Prabhat Tyagi Chairman Cum Managing Director Nsfdc

Goutam Chakraborty and Ors. Vs the Defence Secretary and Ors.

Ordnance Factories Office Superintendents Welfare Association (Ofoswa) through Its General Secretary Vs Mr Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors.

B a Tata Vs Punya Salila Srivastav & Ors.

Nice Society Trust Vs Rahul Navin & Anr.

Rishika Goyal Vs Kushal Mittal

Matrix College of Pharmacy (PCI-10487) Vs Mr. Anil Mittal

Anil Nanda Vs Union of India and Ors. & Ors.

Bhavna Lather Vs Intec Capital Ltd. & Ors.

Abdul Rashid Sheikh Vs Nia

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Sanjeev Khirwar, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pankaj Pandey Vs New-Delhi Muncipal Council and Ors.