Delhi HC expresses concern over rampant unauthorised constructions allowed by MCD officials

The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over rampant unauthorised construction permitted by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), accusing them of "ill-motivated selective application of laws".

Justice Dharmesh Sharma issued a notice of show cause to three officials of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), now known as MCD, questioning them on potential contempt of judicial orders.

The petitioner, a woman seeking approval for the construction of a third floor, alleged contempt of orders issued in 2017 and 2018.

Despite a 2017 court directive to process her building plans, the MCD officials rejected her application in 2018, citing the absence of a submitted building plan for the existing construction and a lack of a structural stability certificate.

Justice Sharma denounced the officials' reasons as wrong and false, stressing their disregard for judicial directions.

"This court is not oblivious of the ground situation as to rampant unauthorised construction allowed by the official of the MCD under their very noses and ill-motivated selective applications of laws thereby harassing and tormenting innocent people. The petitioner is one such lady who wants to raise construction as per law and her legitimate expectations have been dealt with a death blow. The respondents' officials are expected to discharge their duties in a manner which inspires confidence of the people," the court said.

It accused the officials of audaciously failing to comply with court orders, forcing the petitioner into a prolonged legal battle.

Finding the officials guilty of contempt of judicial directions, the court ordered them to appear for a hearing on January 16, 2024.

In the interim, the officials were directed to review the rejection order and consider the petitioner's response, ensuring a fair hearing.

The court stressed on the urgency of this review, demanding a status-cum-compliance report before the next date of hearing. "In the interregnum, the respondents are directed to review the order dated 25.04.2023 and consider the reply of the petitioner dated 08/09.05.2018, and pass a reasoned order after affording her, or her authorised representative an effective hearing. This whole exercise be conducted on or before the next date of hearing, for which a status- cum-compliance report be filed on or before the next date of hearing," the court said.