Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

august 2025

Delhi High Court · 2025-08-28

RAMKESH CHAPRANA vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Citation / case number
W.P.(C)-13163/2025 2025:DHC:7519
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
RAMKESH CHAPRANA
Respondent
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 + W.P.(C) 13163/2025 & CM APPL. 53926/2025 RAMKESH CHAPRANA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Priyansh Jain, Mr. Anmol Ghai, Ms. Ishita Nautiyal, Ms. Kritika Verma and Mr. Divyansh Sharma, Advocates along with son of petitioner. Mob: 9810355699 Email: [email protected] Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arjun Mahajan, SC for MCD with Mr. Apoorv Upmanyu and Mr. Harsh Vashist, Advocates Mob: 9810047321 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J: (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Demolition Order dated 13th August, 2025, passed by the Assistant Engineer-II, Building-II, Central Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), received by the petitioner on 26th August, 2025, in respect of property of the petitioner bearing House No. I-521, I-Block, Hari Nagar Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed before this Court, being aggrieved by the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Page 1 of 4 By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Date:29.08.2025 20:27:33 Demolition Order, since there is no Presiding Officer in the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (“ATMCD”) currently, as the earlier Presiding Officer has completed his tenure on 5th August, 2025 and no fresh appointment of any Presiding Officer has been notified by the Competent Authority, till date. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Demolition Order dated 13th August, 2025 is pursuant to the first Show Cause Notice dated 20th May, 2025 issued by the Building Department, MCD. 4. He submits that the petitioner was unable to attend all the hearings

RAMKESH CHAPRANA vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI · Niyam