Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: A.No. 59/26 : Narender Kumar Vs. MCD
A.No. 60/26 : Kewal Kishan Chopra Vs. MCD
A.No. 61/26 : Rahul Gridhar Vs. MCD
A.No. 62/26 : Sunil Kumar Vs. MCD
A.No. 63/26 : Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs. MCD
06.08.2026
Present : 	Ms. Hinu Mahajan, ld counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, ld. counsel for the respondent in
appeal no. 59/26 and 61/26.
Ms. Rani Prajapati, ld. proxy counsel for Sh. S. Adil
Hussain, Ld counsel for the respondent in appeal no.
60/26, 62/26 & 63/26.
Applications seeking waiver of cost filed in all the matters.
Submissions heard. In view of the reason given, the
applications are allowed and the cost is waived.
Arguments heard on the appeal. The appellants have
challenged the impugned demolition order dated
14.11.2025 passed in respect of shops no. B-3/14, 15,
31, 32, Block B-3, DDA Market, Nand Nagri, Delhi-
110093 on several ground including that the non-
speaking order was passed without considering the reply
of the appellant.
Ld counsel for the MCD on the other hand has stated that
the appellants failed to produce any document along with
the reply to show that the unauthorized construction is
protected under any Act or is as per the sanctioned
building plan and therefore, the reply was rightly held to
be ‘Unsatisfactory’.
…..contd.2
-- 1 of 3 --
: 2 :
I have perused the record.
The impugned order records that no satisfactory reply
received. The appellants gave detailed reply with
documents and it is a non-speaking order on the face of it
as the appellants have right to know as to why the reply
was not found satisfactory. The same does not disclose
the grounds or the reasons on which the reply was found
unsatisfactory.
The respondent being a Quasi Judicial Authority is
required to pass speaking order to make the affected
person aware about the reasons of the impugned order.
The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in
the case of Jaspal Singh Jolly Vs MCD 125 (2005)
DLT 592 held that the impugned order saying reply
was unsatisfactory is bad in law and is liable to be
quashed.
In these facts, the demolition order dated 14.11.2025 is
set aside with directions to the respondents to pass a
speaking order after considering the reply submitted by
the appellants afresh and after giving personal hearing to
the appellants. The appellants shall appear before the
Quasi Judicial Authority on 01.09.2026 at 2.00 pm and
the speaking order be passed within 6 weeks of
conclusion of the hearing.
….contd.3
-- 2 of 3 --
: 3 :
With the above observations, the aforesaid appeals stand
disposed of.
Record of the respondent, if any, be returned along with
copy of this order and appeal files be consigned to record
room.
(AMIT KUMAR)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
P.O.: Appellate Tribunal, MCD
06.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --