$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18th September, 2026 CNR No. DLHC010007082026 + CONT.CAS(C) 63/2026 & CM APPL. 64226/2026 ANIL KUMAR GAMI SOLE PROPRIETOR M/S CHEM ACE MARKETING .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arjav Jain with Mrs. Archana Jain and Ms. Shreya V. Mehra, Advocates. (M): 9811074570 Email:chambers.ayavjain@gmail.com versus SHRI N. SARVANA KUMAR THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, SC, DDA with Mr. Siddhartha Goswami and Mr. Aditya Sachdeva, Advocates for DDA. (M): 8800111333 Email: vlocommunication@outlook.com Mr. Shiven Varma, Advocate for respondent no. 2 and 3/GNCTD . (M): 9810768282 Email: shivenv18@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL): CM APPL. 64226/2026 1. The present application has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 07th May, 2026, passed in the present proceedings, wherein, directions had been given for the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) to execute a lease deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioner. 2. Since certain demands have been raised by the DDA, which are disputed by the petitioner, the present application has come to be filed. 3. It is to be noted that the present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 27th February, 2025, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2505/2025, wherein, directions came to be issued in the following manner: “1. The grievance raised by the petitioner is very short one. 2. Petitioner was allotted a warehousing plot i.e. Plot No. 278, Block-C, measuring 50.00 square meters situated in IFC Holambi Kalan, Narela, Delhi. 3. Allotment letter was received by the petitioner on 18.10.2019. 4. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards the show-cause notice issued by DDA on 18.04.2022 whereby they had asked the petitioner to explain reasons as to why allotment be not cancelled for non-submission of documents. 5. According to petitioner, he had sent appropriate reply to the abovesaid letter on 26.04.2022 and along with the abovesaid letter, he had also sent the complete set of documents but despite above, nothing further has been done. 6. Learned counsel for DDA appears on advance notice and submits that she does not have requisite instructions whether the above said response dated 26.04.2022, was ever received by DDA or not. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, even otherwise, all such documents, which the respondent Authority wanted, are already part of the present writ petition as well. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Authority submits that, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, they would treat the present writ petition as a representation and would take appropriate action in accordance with law, in a time-bound manner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the above said proposal. 10. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed by directing to respondent Authority consider the present writ petition as a representation and to decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. 11. Needless to say, in case, respondent requires some additional documents or information from the petitioner, the same shall be communicated to him well in advance so that there is no further delay in the matter. 12. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. 13. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 14. It is, however, clarified that this court has not given any observation about the merits of the case. 15. Needless to say, in case, petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of such representation, he would be at liberty to take appropriate remedial steps, as permissible under law.” 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the said writ petition was disposed of with directions to the DDA to consider the said writ petition as a representation and to decide the same in accordance with law. Further, the aforesaid order also clarified that the Court had not given any observation on the merits of the case. 5. Affidavit of Compliance dated 24th February, 2026, on behalf of the DDA is on record, which reads as under: “ ” 6. Perusal of the aforesaid Compliance Affidavit shows that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Competent Authority of DDA has examined the matter with regard to the plot of the petitioner i.e., plot no. 278, Block - A, measuring 50 square meters, situated at I.F.C. Holambi Kalan, Narela, Delhi. Further, the petitioner has also been called upon for hearing, and subsequently, various letters to the petitioner have been issued by the DDA. 7. This Court notes letter dated 26th February, 2026, issued by the Commercial Land Branch, DDA, to the petitioner herein, wherein, it has been specifically stated that the DDA intends to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The said letter dated 26th February, 2026, reads as under: “ ” 8. A Physical Possession Slip dated 13th March, 2026, was also issued by the DDA to the petitioner. The same is reproduced as under: “ ” 9. Subsequently, a letter dated 18th August, 2026, has been issued by the Commercial Land Branch, DDA, to the petitioner, wherein, various directions have been issued to the petitioner to deposit the requisite documents. The said letter dated 18th August, 2026 reads as under: ” 10. Furthermore, another letter dated 21st August, 2026, has been issued by the DDA to the petitioner, wherein, the DDA has demanded a sum of Rs. 3,59,347/- from the petitioner, as outstanding dues with respect to the property in question in order to execute the lease deed. The said letter dated 21st August, 2026, issued by the Commercial Land Branch, DDA is reproduced as under: “” 11. Accordingly, it is seen that the DDA has complied with the directions issued in the order dated 27th February, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 2505/2025, in order to consider the petition of the petitioner as a representation and consider the matter for the purposes of execution of the lease deed. 12. This Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has objection to the payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,59,347/-. 13. It is to be noted that the order passed by this Court in the writ proceedings did not adjudicate the claim of the petitioner herein on merits. Therefore, the issue as to the amounts which are payable by the petitioner has, as such, not been adjudicated. 14. Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition. 15. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedies in accordance with law, in case, the petitioner seeks to dispute the demand raised by the DDA for the purposes of the execution of the lease deed. 16. Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending application stands disposed of. 17. The next date of hearing of 17th November, 2026, stands cancelled. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 c Page 2 of 2