$~8 & 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th October, 2025 + CONT.CAS(C) 1051/2025 MANORAMA SAKKERWAL .....Petitioner Through: None. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9560505601 Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates for DDA Mob: 9582055425 Email: gaganmeet3@gmail.com Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC with Ms. Sneha Rawat, Advocate for R-2 Mob: 8769771900 SI Omkar, PS Prasad Nagar Mob: 9013261366 9 + W.P.(C) 6727/2025, CM APPL. 30566/2025 & CM APPL. 64694/2025 SMT MANORAMA SAKKERWAL .....Petitioner Through: None. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9560505601 Mr. Gaganmeet Singh Sachdeva, Mr. Harshpreet Singh Chadha and Mr. Hridyesh Khanna, Advocates for DDA Mob: 9582055425 Email: gaganmeet3@gmail.com Mr. Abhishek Khanna, SPC with Ms. Sneha Rawat, Advocate for R-2 Mob: 8769771900 SI Omkar, PS Prasad Nagar Mob: 9013261366 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Ms. Ila Nath and Ms. Sheetal Dubey, Advocates for R-4 Mob: 9871421111 Email: adityakumaradv@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed praying for directions to respondent nos. 1 to 3, for restraining respondent nos. 4 and 5 from carrying out any further construction at the property bearing No. 5468/71, Raiger Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 draws the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4, relevant portions of which, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 3. By referring to the aforesaid counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioner does not reside in the property in question and that the said property is lying vacant for more than last twenty years. 4. The photographs of the said property, as attached along with the counter affidavit of respondent no. 4, are reproduced as under: 5. Further, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner, which is reproduced as under: 6. By referring to the aforesaid Aadhaar Card, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the details in the said Aadhaar Card were only updated on 05th May, 2025, i.e., immediately before filing of the present writ petition. 7. He further submits that a civil suit was filed on behalf of the petitioner being CS/SCJ 355/2025, titled as “Manorama Devi Versus Sunil Kumar & Ors.” before the Court of Civil Judge, Central Delhi. 8. He submits that the said suit was filed with the same prayer as in the present writ petition for taking action against the alleged unauthorized construction existing in the property of respondent nos. 4 and 5, respondent no. 4 being the owner/occupier of the property in question and respondent no. 5 being the builder of the said property. 9. He submits that the said suit filed on behalf of the petitioner herein was dismissed on 30th April, 2025. Thus, it is submitted that after the dismissal of the said suit on 30th April, 2025, the petitioner, after having her Aadhaar Card updated on 05th May, 2025, filed the present writ petition on 17th May, 2025. 10. He further submits that the aforesaid facts with regard to the suit having been filed by the petitioner, have not been disclosed in the present writ petition. 11. He further draws the attention of this Court to the complaint made on behalf of the respondent no. 4 to the Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station-Karol Bagh, wherein, the respondent no. 4 has made a complaint against the petitioner and her son, who are trying to extort money from respondent no. 4, with respect to the construction in the property of the respondent no. 4. 12. He further draws the attention of this Court to the order passed in CS SCJ 355/2025, by the Tis Hazari Courts, wherein, it is clearly stated that the Status Report filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) shows that no construction was being carried out in the property of respondent no. 4 herein and that rather, it was the stand of the MCD before the Tis Hazari Court that the construction had been done after obtaining the Sanctioned Building Plan under the SARAL Scheme, Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016 (“UBBL 2016”). 13. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for respondent-MCD draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD to submit that requisite action has already been taken against the property in question. 14. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner herein had earlier approached the Tis Hazari Courts, by way of filing a civil suit, being CSSCJ 355/2025, titled as “Manorama Devi Versus Sunil Kumar& Ors.”. 15. As per the submissions made before this Court, the said suit was filed on the same cause of action as the present writ petition. The said suit was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 30th April, 2025. The order dated 30th April, 2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, in the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, is reproduced as under: 16. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that as per the Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD before the Tis Hazari Courts, the construction in the property which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, was being carried out after obtaining the Sanctioned Building Plan from the MCD. 17. This Court further notes the Status Report dated 11th October, 2025 filed on behalf of the respondent-MCD, relevant portion of which, are reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx .” 18. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD shows that demolition and sealing action have been initiated by the MCD against the property in question on the ground that unauthorized construction exists in the property in question. 19. The said stand of the MCD, as disclosed in the Status Report of the MCD before this Court, is in total contradiction to the stand of the MCD before the Tis Hazari Court, wherein, it was stated that the construction was being carried out in the property, in terms of the Sanctioned Building Plan. 20. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to relook into the matter as regards the contradictory stand taken before this Court and before the Tis Hazari Courts and, after having a relook at its Report, appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken by the MCD, wherever needed. 21. It is to be noted that the fact of the suit having been filed on behalf of the petitioner has not been disclosed before this Court and that there has been clear suppression of material facts. It is clear that there has been a suppression of material facts before this Court, wherein, the petitioner has not disclosed before this Court the fact regarding the civil suit having been filed in the Tis Hazari Courts, on the same cause of action. 22. Further, the fact that the petitioner does not stay at the property in question, as mentioned in the Memo of Parties and that the said property is lying vacant for last more than twenty years, as noted above, is a material factor and the same has not been disclosed by the petitioner before this Court. Clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with a view to solely misuse the process of this Court. 23. It is well settled by a long line of judicial pronouncements that a petitioner, who seeks to invoke the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court, must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before this Court, without concealing or suppressing any fact. In case, any party makes a false statement before this Court or suppresses any material facts or attempts to mislead the Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma Versus Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, relevant portions of which are reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx 34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. xxx xxx xxx” 24. Further, this Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 that the petitioner has been approaching the respondent no. 4 with a view to extort money. The complaint made by respondent no. 4 before the Police, in this regard, is reproduced as under: 25. This fact is also elucidated by respondent no. 4 in its counter affidavit, in the following manner: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 26. The facts disclosed before this Court are very serious in nature and no party can be allowed to use the process of this Court for ulterior motives and with a view to extort money from another party on the basis that such party is carrying out unauthorized construction. 27. There is no doubt that this Court takes very serious note of cases wherever unauthorized construction is carried out, however, the same does not give any leeway to any party to blackmail such persons, who are raising such construction. This is clearly a gross abuse of the process of law. 28. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, it is clear that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is by way of oblique motives and not for the purposes of seeking justice, for which the Courts of Law have been established. 29. Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, the present writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac), to be paid by the petitioner. 30. The SHO, Police Station - Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, is directed to take appropriate action on the complaint made by respondent no. 4. 31. This Court further takes note of the fact, as manifest from the aforesaid complaint made by respondent no. 4 to the police, that the correct address of the petitioner herein is 5A/10870, Gali No. 1, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005. 32. Accordingly, list the matter before the Registrar for compliance of today’s order by the petitioner for depositing the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as imposed by this Court. 33. The cost as imposed by this Court shall be deposited by the petitioner within a period of six weeks, from today, payable to the Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust (‘A/c No. 15530210002995, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch Address: Delhi High Court, IFSC: UCBA0001553’). 34. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. 35. List before the Registrar for compliance on 19th December, 2025. MINI PUSHKARNA, J OCTOBER 14, 2025/SK CONT.CAS(C) 1051/2025 & W.P.(C) 6727/2025 Page 1 of 22