$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 283/2024 & CM APPL. 18312/2024 MANISH RAWAT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Kohli with Mr. Ghufran Ahmad and Mr. Mohd. Shariq, Advocates.

(M): 9811192957 Email: m.shariq.k@gmail.com versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS...... Respondents Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2/MCD with Mr. Rakesh Mittal, Advocate and Mr.

Surender Dabas, Astt Engineer.

(M): 9312839323 Email: pujakalra09@gmail.com Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi with Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advocates for respondent no. 3/DDA (STF). (M): 9810473166 Email: ac10.adv@gmail.com Mr. Sandeep Bajaj with Mr. Vipul Jai, Advocates for respondent no. 4.

Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik with Ms.

Anjali Sharma, Mr. Deepak Bashta, Mr. Sonu Kumar Sagar, Ms. Ragini Vinaik and Ms. Kanishka Sharma, Advocates for respondent no. 5 with respondent no. 5 in person.

(M): 9953099193

011-23389754 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 283/2024 Page 1 of 14 % Date of Decision: 29^th April, 2024 CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 04^th December, 2023 passed in W.P. (C) No. 15565/2023

2. By way of the said order, the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) has been directed to submit its inspection report before the Special Task Force (“STF”), so that the Action Taken Report can be uploaded on the STF portal. Further, this Court had also recorded that the respondent no. 5 herein had applied for a completion certificate for the subject property, i.e., property no. J-10/3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 110027 and in that regard the MCD proposed to inspect the property, to check for any deviation from the sanctioned plan.

3. The present contempt petition came to be filed on the ground that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are the owner and builder of the subject property, were still carrying out unauthorised construction and no action has been taken against such illegal and unauthorised construction.

4. When the matter was listed for hearing on 22^nd March, 2024, the matter was referred to the Commissioner, MCD, since it was the contention on behalf of the petitioner that despite issuance of the completion certificate on 25^th January, 2024, further construction was being carried out. Thus, the Commissioner, MCD was directed to investigate the matter as to how further construction could be carried out in the property, when completion Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 283/2024 Page 2 of 14 certificate had already been issued.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a Status Report has been filed on behalf of the MCD, wherein it is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was taken up by the Commissioner, MCD. Subsequent thereto, fresh inspection of the property was carried out, and it was found that the respondent no. 4 and 5 were carrying out unauthorised construction of a toilet in the stilt area. Further, respondent no. 4 and 5 had also put scaffolding on the building in question, for the purposes of painting the outer wall of the said building.

6. To similar effect, Status Reports have been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5, wherein it is stated that the only construction that was being carried out inadvertently by them, was construction of a toilet.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 and 5, that the toilet was being constructed in the stilt area on the bonafide belief that the same was permissible and that no permission was required for construction of the same from the MCD.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD has categorically submitted before this Court that pursuant to the inspection carried out by the officials of the MCD, the said unauthorised construction in the shape of toilet in the stilt area has already been demolished.

9.