High Court of DelhiCONT.CAS(C)/1538/2024

Mount Carmel School Society v. Gyanesh Bharti, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ORS.

2025-04-23Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal5 pages

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1538/2024 MOUNT CARMEL SCHOOL SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vedanta Varma and Mr.

Shubhankar Choudhary, Advocates.

versus GYANESH BHARTI, COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

.....Respondent Through:

Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Sourav Verma, Adv.

Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Mrs. Chandrika Sachdev, Mr. Dhruv Kumar, Advs.

for GNCTD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 23.04.2025 1.

In compliance of the orders of the Court dated 28th March 2023 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7697/2015, Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel for the MCD has drawn attention to the status report filed on 16th April 2025. The relevant parts of the status report 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.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

It is, therefore, noted in the status report, and also asserted by the counsel for the MCD, that the respondent/MCD are keeping a strict vigil of the gate so as to ensure there is no violation of the NOC as issued by the MCD and of its prevailing gate policy.

The policy in question is dated 25th June 2007 titled 'Policy /Guidelines for Installation of Gates for security of colonies', which formed part of the directions of this Court on 28th March 2023. 4.

Based on the status report and the statement made by the counsel, ensuring compliance as per the prevailing gate policy, the petition is being The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in case they find any continued infraction. 5.

Counsel for the petitioner states, that their concern relates mostly to Clause 3(l) & (m) of the said policy, which are extracted as under: 6.

Needless to state, once the statement has been made by the MCD, no further directions need be passed by this Court. 7.

It is for the petitioner to assert any remedy they may have against any appropriate party, including RWA in this regard, if they find that said policy has been contravened.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J APRIL 23, 2025/MK/na The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.