$~2 (Appellate Side)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3876/2025, CM APPL. 1685/2026, CM APPL. 1686/2026 &

CM APPL. 9815/2026 MEGHNA BHUYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rudra Pratap, Mr. Tushar Randhawa, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Ali Ibrahim, Advs. with petitioner in person.

Mob: 8800000881 Email: rudra@r.pandchamber.com versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar and Mr.

Guneet Bindra, Advs. for MCD Mob: 9910122225 Email: contactuskla@gmail.com Mr. Nimish Chib, Adv. and Mr. Ajay Mishra, Adv. for R-4 to 8.

Mob: 9810823566 Email:

nimishchibandassociates@gmail.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 12.02.2026 CM APPL. 1686/2026 (For Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 1685/2026 (For recalling of the order dated 17^th November, 2025)

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 17^th November, 2025 passed by this Court.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of hearing of the matter on 17^th November, 2025, the petitioner was not represented by any counsel, as the new counsel engaged by the petitioner, i.e., Mr. Rudra Pratap, who was not present on the said date.

5. The petitioner, i.e., Ms. Meghna Bhuyan, is present in person before this Court and confirms the fact that she had engaged Mr. Rudra Pratap, Advocate, as reflected in the order dated 27^th October, 2025.

6. Ms. Meghna Bhuyan submits that since she had engaged Mr. Rudra Pratap as a new counsel, therefore, Mr. M. A. Chaudhary and Mr. Shehzad Khan, Advocates assisted by Mr. Vivek Dixit, Mr. Salimuddin and Mr. Kanish Singh, Advocates, were not entitled to appear on behalf of the petitioner on 17^th November, 2025, as recorded in the said order.

7. It is submitted that the said counsels wrongly put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the said date.

8. However, Mr. M. A. Chaudhary and Mr. Shehzad Khan, Advocates are present in Court before this Court and submit that they had validly appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 17^th November, 2025.

9. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the matter is referred to the Bar Council of Delhi (“BCD”), to resolve the issues in this regard, and pass appropriate orders after following the due process.

10. The details of Mr. M. A. Chaudhary and Mr. Shehzad Khan, Advocates, are given as under:

“Mr. M. A. Chaudhary, Advocate Enrollment No. D/654/2021 Mob: 9810506786 Email: oluscalegal7@gmail.com Mr. Shehzad Khan, Advocate Enrollment No. D/567/92 Mob: 9716379252 Email: advocate.khanshehzad@gmail.com”

11. The details of Mr. Rudra Pratap, Advocate, are given as under:

“Mr. Rudra Pratap, Advocate Enrollment No. D/4102/2013 Mob: 8800000881 Email: rudra@r.pandchamber.com”

12. Ms. Meghna Bhuyan is present in Court, and her Aadhaar Card, as given to this Court, is reproduced as under:

13. The details of Ms. Meghna Bhuyan, the petitioner in the present case, are further noted as under:

“Name: Meghna Bhuyan Aadhaar No. 5308 4353 2383 Mob: 8851141912, 9953714157 Email: meganhanup@gmail.com”

14. The petitioner, Ms. Meghna Bhuyan, is at liberty to make a representation to the BCD, which shall issue notices to the respective parties and pass appropriate orders, after following the due process.

15. This Court notes that vide order dated 17^th November, 2025, this Court had disposed of the present writ petition on the ground that the earlier No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) for installation of the lift had been withdrawn by the MCD vide its order dated 22^nd October, 2025.

16. Subsequently, the MCD has given a new permission on 22^nd December, 2025.

17. Since, the present writ petition had been filed within respect to the earlier permission granted by MCD vide letter dated 10^th February, 2025, in view of the fact that the said permission already stood withdrawn vide order dated 22^nd Octobe