SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46945

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANGITA SAHU VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
W.P.(C) 19439/2025



$~50

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 19439/2025 & CM APPL. 81066/2025, CM APPL.

81067/2025

DHRUV GUPTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dhruv Madan and Mr. Shivanshu

Gusain, Advocates Mob: 9643670913

Email:

advshivanshugusain@gmail.com

versus

SPECIAL TASK FORCE, MCD & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, SC with Mr.

Bhavishya Makhija and Mr. Aman

Khan, Advocates for MCD

Mob: 9910870397

Email: siddhantadv.nath@gmail.com

Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG, Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan, Ms. Reya Paul, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms.

Amruta Padhi, Advocates for R-3

Mob: 9810134597

Email - abhisheksaket@gmail.com

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

CM APPL. 81067/2025 (For Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 19439/2025 & CM APPL. 81066/2025

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the

respondent nos. 1 to 3, to take action against the unauthorized construction being carried by respondent no. 4 out at the property bearing No. 41E, Ashoka Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 04th September, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 8591/2024 and submits that in terms of the said order, the petitioner has approached the Special Task Force (“STF”) and has made a complaint with respect to fresh unauthorized construction. However, no action has been taken.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 15th July, 2024, filed on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) in W.P.(C) 8591/2024, titled as “Sh. Dhruv Gupta Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.”, wherein, it is stated as follows:

6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

7. Respondent no. 1 is the STF. However, in the Memo of Parties, it has been mentioned as STF, through Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), even though, STF comes under the authority of the Chairman, Delhi Development Authority(“DDA”).

8. Accordingly, let amended Memo of Parties be filed clearly stating STF, through the Chairman DDA.

9. Issue notice to respondent no. 1 through all modes, including Standing Counsel-DDA and to respondent no. 4 as well.

10. Let reply/Status Report be filed by the respondents, within a period of four weeks.

11. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.

12. In case of any ongoing construction, the concerned official of MCD, as well as Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station-Neb Sarai, are directed to get the further construction stopped forthwith.

13. Re-notifyon 28th April, 2026.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025 ak

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top