Rizwan Ali v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

1. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the averments made in the instant application, the application is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of. LPA 444/2026 & CM APPLs. 38524-27/2026

1. This intra-Court appeal assails an order dated 15.04.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge in CONT.CAS(C) 613/2026 instituted by the Digiltally respondent No.3 which has been disposed of by noticing that in compliance of the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the writ court in W.P.(C) 9582/2021, a demolition order had been passed and that demolition action was scheduled on 17.04.2026.

2. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order has also observed that in view of the said statement made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [‘MCD’], let demolition action be taken to its logical conclusion. Learned Single Judge has also directed the police authorities to render necessary assistance to the MCD. The learned Single Judge has recorded an assurance and undertaking given on behalf of the MCD that there shall be no shortcoming in taking the requisite action to remove / demolish the entire subsisting unauthorized construction.

3. It appears that W.P.(C) 9582/2021 was instituted by the respondent No.3 where the present appellant was also a party respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of by means of an order dated 09.02.2022 whereby the status report filed by the MCD was noted and it was stated in the status report that action against unauthorized construction was proposed, however, on an appeal against the order of demolition filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal, the MCD was restrained from taking any coercive action pending the said appeal.

4. The learned Single Judge had, thus, disposed of W.P.(C) 9582/2021 by observing that the Corporation shall take action in accordance with law, if so warranted, after the disposal of the appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal – MCD in terms of the orders which may be passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

5. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal – MCD was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2023 which was challenged by the appellant before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge in proceedings under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. These proceedings were also dismissed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.08.2023.

6. The order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge is under challenge before this Court in CM(M) 1414/2023 before the learned Single Judge wherein, vide order dated 19.05.2026, the prayer for interim relief made by the appellant was refused. The appellant thereafter challenged the said order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by instituting the proceedings of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21272/2026 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.06.2026 with the liberty to the appellant to approach this Court for early hearing of the said petition.

7. It is to be noticed that the order impugned in this appeal is dated 15.04.2026 which was passed even before the order rejecting the interim relief application was passed by this Court on 19.05.2026 by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CM(M) 1414/2023. It is also to be noticed that the impugned order was passed before the SLP(C) 21272/2026 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.06.2026.

8. Accordingly, after the appellant failed in his attempt to seek any stay on the demolition order passed by the MCD, has now attempted to collaterally obtain a stay order on demolition by seeking to challenge the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in contempt petition instituted by respondent No.3.

9. It is to be noticed that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda, (2006) 5 SCC 399, the instant Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable for the reason that by passing the impugned order dated 15.04.2026, no finding has been recorded; neither any observation has been made by the learned Single Judge touching upon the merits of the issues between the parties; neither has the learned Single Judge issued any direction. The learned Single Judge has only noticed the statement made on behalf of the MCD and has observed that the action proposed shall be taken to its logical end and has further observed that police authorities shall extend necessary cooperation to the MCD.

10. Such observation made by the learned Single Judge will not make the impugned order amenable to intra Court appeal for the reason that these observations are only in aid of implementing the order passed by writ Court on 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) 9582/2021.

11. Much water has flown under the bridge after the order dated 09.02.2022 was passed by this Court as the appeal filed by the appellant against the demolition order has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal – MCD and further that the Principal District and Sessions Judge did not interfere with the order of demolition. In the pending proceedings of CM(M) 1414/2023, the prayer for interim relief has also been refused by the learned Single Judge and the SLP, i.e SLP(C) 21272/2026, against the refusal of grant of interim order has also been dismissed as withdrawn.

12. For the reasons aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the instant appeal along with the pending applications is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 21, 2026/ N.Khanna