In a contempt petition for non-compliance, where the authority demonstrates sufficient action taken to satisfy the court's previous order, the petitioner's grievances regarding the adequacy of such action must be pursued through designated alternative administrative or oversight authorities rather than further contempt proceedings.

O R D E R

1. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience / non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 28.04.2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5447/2025. The said order reads as under:

“1.The present writ petition has been filed for directions to respondentnos. 1 to 3, to demolish the illegal constructions and seal the propertybearing no. 27, Hakikat Nagar, Delhi-110009.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a complaintdated 5th April, 2025, was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents no.1 & 2/ Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), with respect to theunauthorized and illegal construction in the property, wherein, therespondent no. 4 has removed a load bearing wall from the property, whichwas standing there since last 55 years.

3. There is further allegation that the respondent no. 4 has installed ashutter and intends to convert the residential unit into a commercial one,without any permission from the MCD.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the MCD, on advancenotice, submits that the unauthorized construction in the property hasalready been booked on 25th April, 2025, and a Show Cause Notice withregard thereto, has already been issued.

5. She further submits that the proceedings are now listed before thedepartment on 14th April, 2025, and that requisite action shall be taken bythe MCD in accordance with law, after granting hearing to the respondentno. 4 herein, i.e., owner/occupier of the property in question.

6. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of theMCD, it is directed that requisite action shall be taken by the MCD inaccordance with law expeditiously, especially, in view of the allegation ofthe petitioner that a load bearing wall standing from last 55 years, has beenremoved.

7. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any non-action on the part ofthe MCD, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Special Task Force(“STF”) constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in terms of thedirections as passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Devender Versus Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & Ors., in W.P.(C) 1807/2018 and Fazruddin Versus DDA in W.P.(C) 4649/2017.

8. The MCD, upon taking action against the alleged unauthorized construction, shall upload the Action Taken Report, on the website of theSTF.

9. The SHO of the local Police Station is directed to ensure that adequatepolice force is provided to the MCD for taking requisite action, against the unauthorized construction.

10. Rights and contentions of all the parties are kept open and in case the respondent no. 4, i.e., owner/occupier of the property in question, isaggrieved by any action of the MCD, he is at liberty to seek his remedies, asavailable.

11. The MCD shall also ensure that no further illegal construction is carried out.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with thepending application, stands disposed of.”

2. During the course of hearing, a status report has been handed over by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in which it is stated as under:

“1. That the deponent has acquainted himself with the facts and circumstances of the present case on the basis of the records available and maintained in the office of the respondent / MCD, as such is competent to sear the present affidavit on behalf of answering respondent.

2. That the property bearing no.27, Hakikat Nagar was inspected on 25.04.2025. During inspection, no shifting/removal of wall was noticed. However, the owner has carried out unauthorized construction in the shape of one room, on toilet by raising walls and covering roof by metro sheet in the back courtyard of ground floor. Accordingly,