YouTube
Print
September 01 2025NO TRIBUNAL JUDGE: HIGH COURT INTERVENES IN MCD PROPERTY DISPUTE
Fact of the Case A property owner in Delhi challenged a demolition order issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) concerning their residential premises. The demolition order, dated mid-August 2025, was passed by the local authorities and was received by the owner towards the end of the same month. Contention by Petitioner The petitioner argued that the demolition order stemmed from an earlier show cause notice issued in May 2025 by the MCD’s Building Department. Due to being unable to attend all scheduled hearings, the petitioner claimed they did not get a fair chance to present the necessary documents and explanations in response to this notice. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted that a second show cause notice was issued in August 2025, and those proceedings were still ongoing, requesting an opportunity to respond to both notices and submit all pertinent documents. Contention by Respondent The MCD, represented by its legal counsel, submitted that the owner was already being granted hearings regarding the second show cause notice dated August 2025. It was clarified that the proceedings as per the second notice were still pending and that no final order had yet been passed as a result. Court Observation The High Court of Delhi observed that proceedings connected to the more recent show cause notice were still active. The Court also acknowledged the petitioner’s request to be given a chance to respond to the previous (May 2025) notice as well. Notably, the Court permitted the owner to submit responses and documents concerning both the May and August show cause notices during the current proceedings. Why the Case Was Not Heard Before the Tribunal The petitioner did not approach the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD), due to the absence of a Presiding Officer at the time—the previous officer’s tenure ended in early August 2025, and a new appointment had not been made by the competent authority. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court directly for relief. Relevant Case Law Although the order does not cite a specific precedent, the Court’s approach aligns with settled principles of natural justice as found in Supreme Court judgments such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248], which hold that parties should be given a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse action is finalized. This principle underpins the requirement for a fair hearing with adequate opportunity to present one’s case. Final Decision The High Court directed that the demolition order should remain in suspension while proceedings related to the August 2025 show cause notice are pending. The MCD was instructed to grant the petitioner an opportunity to submit responses and documents addressing both the May and August notices. After hearing the petitioner, the MCD must issue a fresh detailed (“Speaking”) order, which should be communicated to the petitioner. Should the decision be unfavorable, its operation must be suspended for four weeks, giving the petitioner time to avail any further remedies in accordance with law. DATE OF DECISION: 28.08.2025 CASE NO: W.P.(C) 13163/2025 Authored By Advocate Alok Kumar, an experienced practising lawyer in Delhi NCR.
Author
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District CourtsLL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University
Comments are not allowed on this article.
