Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Parveen Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
D.R. Meena – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: O.P. Gupta
For the Respondents: Ashutosh Gupta, Bharat Malhotra, Gayatri Bhatia

When a regulatory authority is restrained pending an appeal, a temporary vacancy in the appellate tribunal necessitates direct judicial intervention to enable the parties to seek interim relief; regulatory action remains subject to the appellate tribunal's decision on such relief after a specified period.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Contempt of Court - Willful disobedience - Interim protection against property demolition - Appellate forum unavailability due to vacancy of presiding officer - Requirement for parties to seek interim orders from the appellate authority. (Paras 3-5)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Supervisory power - Balancing regulatory powers with property rights - Duty of the court to issue time-bound directions for seeking interim relief while preventing indefinite stagnation of regulatory action. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners alleged willful disobedience of an order that directed the cessation of demolition activities until their stay application was heard by the appellate authority. The difficulty arose because the appellate authority was non-functional due to the absence of a presiding officer, leaving the status of the previously granted protection uncertain and allowing for potential regulatory action against the properties in question.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the inaction of the appellate authority created a procedural deadlock. It determined that the court’s role was not to grant an indefinite stay but to ensure that the petitioners had a viable opportunity to seek interim relief before the appropriate authority. The court held that if the appellate body refuses to grant a stay upon the application being heard, the regulatory authority is then free to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

Issues: Whether the regulatory authority acted in contempt of the previous order and what procedural course of action is required to balance the protection of property rights against the execution of regulatory duties when the appellate forum is temporarily incapacitated.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when an appellate forum is temporarily unable to function due to a vacancy, the aggrieved party must be granted a specific, time-bound opportunity to approach said forum for interim relief. Indefinite restraint on regulatory bodies is not sustainable; therefore, the court provided a clear timeline for the filing of applications and stipulated that the regulatory body may proceed with enforcement only if the appellate forum declines to grant interim protection after the matter is listed.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for the petitioners to approach the appellate authority within one week, and conditional permission for the regulatory authority to act if no interim relief is granted.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance and historical background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding compliance with previous interim stay orders. (Para 4 , 5)
3. directions for interim relief adjudication and order disposal. (Para 6 , 7)

SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

CM APPL.28067/2026 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026

3. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment/ order dated 24.09.2025 passed in CM(M) 1903/2025. The said judgment/ order reads as under:

“1. Petitioners have approached this Court invoking supervisory jurisdiction because the Appellate Tribunal MCD is currently not functional and is awaiting appointment of a Presiding Officer.

2. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that in case their appeal is not heard, the subject property may be demolished by the respondent MCD. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the appeal was filed on 02.09.2025 before ATMCD but the same got adjourned on

03.09.2025 by the Reader because the new Presiding Officer is yet to join.

3. Learned counsel for respondent MCD appearing on advance intimation accepts notice.

4. In similar matters, including CM(M) 1833/2025, the concerned counsel for MCD has been giving assurances that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, no precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent MCD against the subject property till stay application in the appeal is heard by ATMCD.

5. Going by the aforesaid, the present petition and the accompanying applications are disposed of restraining the respondent MCD from giving effect to the impugned demolition order and vacation notice till the stay application in appeal filed by the petitioner gets heard by the ATMCD.”

4. The petitioners herein are owners / occupiers of the concerned property. It is the case of the petitioners that vide the aforesaid judgment/ order dated 24.09.2025, it was clearly recorded that no precipitative steps would be taken by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) till the petitioners’ stay application is heard by the ATMCD.

5. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that the petitioners have not been diligent in pursuing the said application and in fact, no interim order/s, granting any protection to the petitioners have been passed by the ATMCD. As such, there is no judicial order which precludes the MCD from taking requisite action. Moreover, it is emphasized that taking of requisite action is mandated in terms of the order dated 24.09.2025.

6. Considering the circumstances, the following directions are issued:

(i) The petitioners shall be entitled to approach the ATMCD seeking interim order/s, if so warranted. The requisite application for the said purpose should be filed within a period of one week from today.

(ii) It shall be for the ATMCD to consider whether any interim relief is to be granted to the petitioner. The same shall be considered by the ATMCD on its own merits based on the attendant facts and circumstances, without being influenced by any orders passed in these proceedings.

(iii) If no interim relief is granted by the ATMCD to the petitioners, upon the petitioners’ application in this regard being first listed before the ATMCD, the MCD take appropriate action qua the property in question, in accordance with law.

7. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISachin Datta, JParveen Kumar Bansal – AppellantVersusD.R. Meena – RespondentCONT.CAS(C) 734/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Parveen Kumar Bansal – Appellant
Versus
D.R. Meena – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026