Sri Mandir Raksha Samiti v. Sh Gyanesh Bharti & ORS.
$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1902/2023 SRI MANDIR RAKSHA SAMITI .....Petitioner Through:
Ms. Sana Ansari and Mr. I. Ahmed, Advs.
versus SH GYANESH BHARTI & ORS.
.....Respondent Through:
Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Ms.
Archana Surve, GP along with Mr.
Subhrodeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar and Ms. Anamika Thakur, Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 02.05.2025 1.
Ms. Sana Ansari, Counsel for the petitioner appears and states that no reply has been filed by the respondent.
2.
Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent and states that this petition cannot subsist, considering the orders of which compliance is sought, are as under:
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3.
This submission as part of para 2 extracted above, was made by the respondent at that stage, to withdraw the action which was proposed to be taken, and to take further action 'in accordance with law'. 4.
Subsequent thereto, notices were issued under Section 5A (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ('PP Act') on 01st June 2023; thereafter, encroachments had been removed, including that, belonging to the petitioner. These encroachments are on railway land, and therefore, it was necessitated that they be removed. 5.
Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner had already challenged the said proceedings and that the right to initiate appropriate The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
legal action was given in order dated 11th April 2023. 6.
Considering the facts and circumstances above, the Court is of the opinion that this contempt petition cannot subsist. It is for the petitioner to pursue their remedies, in accordance with law, if they are aggrieved with the notice under the PP Act and their subsequent removal. 7.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the issuance of notice itself, under the PP Act, was in contempt of the order dated 11th April 2023. 8.
The Court does not find merit in this submission, considering the order of 11th April 2023 was clear, since it is stated that the respondent will take steps in accordance with law, after serving due notice to the "individual occupants".
9.
Petition is, therefore, disposed of.
10.
Pending applications, if any, be rendered infructuous. 11.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 2, 2025/MK/kp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.