Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.09.2025
PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Advocate
Through: Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate
JUDGMENT
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. CM(M) 1903/2025 pages
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.
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 24, 2025