$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10719/2025 with CM APPL. 44358/2025, CM APPL.

53941/2025 and CM APPL. 4859/2026 SADANAND OJHA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Mr. Saurabh Chaddha & Mr. Rohit Bhagat, Advocates.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Chopra, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate.

Mr. Hari Om Kumar, Advocate for R-

4 Mr. Tushar Sannu and Ms. Pulak Gupta Joshi, Advocates for GNCTD.

Mr. Dhirendra Sirohi, Delhi Fire Service.

Mr. Aman Shreyas, Mr. J. Rajesh, Ms. Mannat Tipris, Mohd. Avsalam & Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates for impleader. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the aggrieved residents and flat owners of Navsena Apartments, Plot No. 9, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034, challenging the permission/No objection Certificate (“NOC”) dated 6^th June, 2025 issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to residents of Flat Nos. 1-A to 2-D and 22-A to 23-D for installation of lifts and building connecting bridges.

2. Mr. Rohal Jaitley, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners as such do not have any objection to the installation of the lifts. However, the only challenge of the petitioners is the manner in which the permission has been granted by the MCD, i.e., without assessing the structural safety of the buildings in question. It is submitted that the buildings are almost 38 years old and therefore, the construction of the lifts may pose danger to the structural safety of the buildings.

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the Structural Report dated 25^th August, 2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner is a self-serving document, to show that the buildings are not structurally safe.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have been heard at length today.

5. Status reports/ affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondent- MCD, stating that the buildings are structurally sound and building a shaft for the lifts would not affect the safety of the buildings.

6. Along with the affidavit filed by the respondent-MCD on 24^th November, 2025, certificate from a Structural Engineer has been placed on record, which states as under:

7. In respect of the aforesaid certificate of the Structural Engineer, the following concerns have been expressed on behalf of the petitioner:

i. The construction of the connecting bridges will affect the structural stability of the buildings.

ii. The construction of the lifts shall block the windows of the residents of Ground Floor of the property and would affect the ventilation.

iii. The shaft of the lifts will be constructed very close to the main wall of the buildings, i.e. at a distance of 150 mm.

8. The respondent-MCD will consider all the aforesaid concerns raised by the petitioners and file a fresh status report addressing the aforesaid issues.

8.1. Three (3) weeks’ time is given to the respondent-MCD to file a report addressing the aforesaid concerns raised by the petitioner.

9. It has been suggested by the private respondents that pillars may be constructed to support the connecting bridges.

9.1. This aspect shall also be considered and dealt with by the respondent-

MCD in its status report.

10. List on 30^th March, 2026 in the in first five matters in the category of ‘Advance List’.

11. The concerned official from MCD shall be physically present in Court on the next date of hearing.

12. In the meanwhile, status quo order passed by this Court on 5^th August, 2025 is modified to the extent that the respondents shall be permitted to carry out the electrical works in relation to the lifts. However, the lifts will not be made operational till the next date of hearing.

AMIT BANSAL, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026 at