PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL & ANR. vs SH. D.R. MEENA AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~121 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026 PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. O.P. Gupta, Adv. versus SH. D.R. MEENA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, ASC, Mr. Bharat Malhotra and Ms. Gayatri Bhatia, Advs. for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CONT.CAS(C) 734/2026 Page 1 of 3 By:ABHISHEK THAKUR Signing Date:29.04.2026 15:33:37 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 pr