Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Action Committee Unaided

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1452

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
The Action Committee Unaided And Another - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2025 (@ D. No.48656 of 2024) with Interlocutory Application No. 248762 of 2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay) in Civil Appeal No. 4545 of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.17978 of 2014)
Decided on : 06-01-2025

Headnote:(A) Supreme Court of India - Miscellaneous Application regarding delay condonation - In cases involving multiple orders from lower courts, it is critical for the appellant to inform the Supreme Court of all related orders and the status of the respondents' participation - The interest of justice favors allowing further appeals in light of prior non-participation by respondents and miscommunication from the appellant. (Paras 4, 6, 8)

(B) Appeal - Respondent's duty to participate in proceedings - While there is a responsibility on parties to respond to notices, it is also incumbent on the appellant to inform the court of any lapses by respondents. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
This judgment concerns a delay condonation application filed by the respondents, who did not appear during earlier proceedings that affected the outcome, leading to claims that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) failed to notify the court of this absence.

Findings of Court:
SLP

(C) No. 17978/2014 is de-tagged from previous cases and MCD is granted liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which must be considered on its merits without limitation issues being raised.

Issues: The court addressed whether the MCD had sufficiently informed the court about the respondents' non-participation and the implications for the appeal process.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court established that both parties have responsibilities in litigation; the court’s action favors justice, enabling a fresh hearing in accordance with law.

Result: The miscellaneous application is disposed of, allowing for further appeals.

Table of Content
1. conclusion on miscellaneous application (Para 1 , 9 , 10)
2. duty of parties to appear in proceedings (Para 2 , 4 , 5)
3. disposal of slp with liberty to file lpa (Para 3 , 6)
4. open contentions for future hearings (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. This miscellaneous application has been filed by the respondent(s) in C.A. No.4545/2024 (@ SLP (C) No.17978/2014) by contending that they did not appear before this Court in the said matter which was disposed of by this Court on 21.03.2024.

3. Further, the appellant/Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) also did not bring to the notice of this Court that the respondent(s) in the said special leave petition had not appeared in the matter and further the said special leave petition was filed as against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2012 directly before this Court.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there was a fault on the part of the respondent(s) in not responding to the notice(s) issued by this Court and not participating in the said proceeding. However, there was a duty cast on the appellant(s) to have brought to the notice of this Court that the batch of cases comprised of not only a challenge of the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Curt but also to the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge against which SLP (C) No.17978/2014 was directly filed before this Court. Consequently, in the absence of the respondent(s) being heard of in the matter, Civil Appeal No.149/2013 and connected cases were disposed of. Hence, learned senior counsel submitted that appropriate orders may be made on the said application.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the MCD strongly and vehemently opposed the said application by contending that the applicant(s) herein may have earlier appeared in the matter but he/they did not participate in the proceedings when the matter was being finally heard and when the order was dictated in the open Court. Also, they did not bring to the notice of this Court that the challenge in SLP (C) No.17978/2014 was to the order of the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, she contended that there is no merit in this application and the same may be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the interest of justice would be served by deleting and de-tagging SLP (C) No.17978/2014 from the cases which were disposed of by this Court on 21.03.2024. Consequently, SLP (C) No.17978/2014 is being disposed of with liberty to the MCD to file Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order of learned Single Judge impugned in that special leave petition before the Division Bench of the High Court. If the LPA is filed within a period of 90 days from today, the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the Division Bench of the High Court.

7. It is needless to observe that the Division Bench shall hear the LPA to be filed by the MCD on its own merits and in accordance with law.

8. All contentions on both sides are left open to be advanced before the Division Bench of the High Court.

9. The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

10. Consequently, the application for impleadment/intervention filed by Apeejay School stands disposed of as it does not call for any orders from this Court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document