ORDER

%

1. Mohd. Arif, learned Counsel earlier appearing for the Petitioner, has stated that he has been disengaged by the Petitioner.

2. Accordingly, Mohd. Arif, learned Counsel, is discharged from these proceedings.

3. Ms. Jaispriya Poply, learned Counsel, has stated that she has filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, though the same is not on record.

4. Let Ms. Jaispriya Poply, learned Counsel, take appropriate steps to bring her Vakaltnama on record by the next date of listing.

5. Issue Notice to the Respondents. On behalf of Respondent No. 1, Mr. Kapil Dutta, learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance and accepts Notice. Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, learned CGSC has put in appearance for Respondent No. 2 and accepts Notice. Mr. R.K. Dhawan, learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and accepts Notice. Mr. Sharique Hussain, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and accepts Notice. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 5 and accepts Notice.

6. This Public Interest Litigation Petition has been filed seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to stop and demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction at Property No. S-2/A-14, admeasuring 250 sq. yards, at Khasra No. 519/258, MCD Ward No. 189, Village Jogabai, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.

7. Certain photographs have been annexed with this Petition, which are said to have been taken on 05.01.2026 and depict certain constructions. The photographs annexed with the Petition, however, do not depict the longitude and latitude of the place to which the photographs pertain to.

8. Mr. Kapil Dutta, learned Standing Counsel representing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), however, has stated that action in respect ofthe property in question was initiated way by the MCD way back on 23.05.2025 and, by means of a letter dated 23.05.2025, a request was made to the authorities concerned to take relevant action. The said letter also records that the construction has been carried out without sanction of the Building Plan and that certain other constructions have been carried out in departure of the sanctioned Building Plan and non-compoundable deviations have been found. The said letter also states that the construction at the site is against the Building Bye-Laws / Master Plan and cannot be compounded / regularized.

9. As per the learned Counsel for the MCD, on 15.07.2025, a watch and ward order for the property in question was also issued and even the demolition has been carried out. It has been further stated by the learned Counsel for the MCD that as per the watch and ward order dated 15.07.2025, demolition action was also taken on 10.07.2025. He has forwarded certain documents including the watch and ward order dated 15.07.2025, two letters dated 23.05.2025 and certain photographs. The said documents are taken on record.

10. In the aforesaid facts, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the MCD that the present Petition has been filed without verifying the correct facts and, therefore, it ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

11. The learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 5 has stated that the present Petition contains incorrect and unverified facts and as a matter of fact, in respect of the same property, earlier one Mr. Aalim had instituted a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 12079/2025, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.08.2025 withcertain observations in the manner in which the said petition was filed and even indicting the petitioner in the said petition.

12. To verify the fact as to whether demolition action against the unauthorized construction or any other action was undertaken in respect of the subject property by the MCD, since there are contradictory statements made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner as opposed to the statement made by the learned Counsel for th