Jarina v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR.
$~57-58 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3020/2026 & CM APPL. 14562/2026 SHAHNAZ .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Mr. Bharat Mishra, Mr. Amit Sangwan and Ms.
Prashantipriya Tiwari, Advocates.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.
Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman and Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advocates with Insp. Mukesh Kumar, PS: Uttam Nagar.
Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.
Samiksha and Ms.
Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates for Delhi Police.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Nath, standing counsel for MCD with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr.
Amaan Khan, Advocates for MCD.
Mr. Manoj Meena, (E.E.) MCD.
Mr. Vishram Meena, (A.E.) MCD.
58.
+ W.P.(C) 3021/2026 & CM APPL. 14563/2026 JARINA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Mr. Bharat Mishra, Mr. Amit Sangwan and Ms.
Prashantipriya Tiwari, Advocates.
versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr.
Shubham Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman and Mr. Ankit Khatri, Advocates with Insp. Mukesh Kumar, PS: Uttam Nagar.
Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, CGSC with Ms.
Samiksha and Ms.
Nandini Aggarwal, Advocates for Delhi Police.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddhant Nath, standing counsel for MCD with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr.
Amaan Khan, Advocates for MCD.
Mr. Manoj Meena, (E.E.) MCD.
Mr. Vishram Meena, (A.E.) MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R
% 11.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3020/2026 & W.P.(C) 3021/2026 1.
The present writ petitions have been filed seeking the following reliefs:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
2.
A perusal of the averments made in the writ petitions would show that entirely separate causes of action have been enjoined together in the writ petitions. On one hand, the petitioners seek protection against the illegal demolition of their property, on the other hand, the petitioners seek police protection.
2.1.
In the opinion of this Court, the two causes of action are entirely different, and the petitioners cannot combine the same in the present petitions.
3.
The averments in the petitions are also vague as to whether the properties of the petitioners are encroaching upon the public drain. 4.
Accordingly, counsel for the petitioners seeks to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file proper petitions with better particulars within one (1) week from today.
5.
The petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 11, 2026 Rzu The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.