Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has held that the judicial process cannot be misused to extort money from persons undertaking unauthorised constructions. Deciding a plea concerning alleged illegal construction in Shaheen Bagh, the Court recorded that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had already taken action at the site and found the petitioner had no direct legal interest. Justice Pushkarna observed that several petitions of this nature are filed with the sole motive of blackmail, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner while directing future scrutiny of similar petitions

The matter before the High Court of Delhi concerned a writ petition and connected contempt petition filed by Tauqir Alam. The petitioner sought directions against respondent authorities, namely the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and others, to demolish alleged illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by respondent no. 6 at property G-66, 40 Foota Road, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla, New Delhi, measuring 100 square yards.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Advocate, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost on Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa

During the hearing, counsel for the MCD placed on record a Status Report and Action Taken Report, confirming that requisite action had been initiated against the property. The Court was informed that demolition action was undertaken on 17 September 2025 and was continuing on 18 September 2025. Photographs of the action were also submitted. The Station House Officer, Police Station Shaheen Bagh, filed a Status Report recording that police assistance was provided to MCD during the operation.

Counsel for respondent no. 6 contested the bona fides of the petition, alleging that the petitioner was an extortionist and blackmailer. It was stated that Tauqir Alam had also formed an NGO, Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha, through which multiple petitions relating to unauthorized constructions had been filed either by him or its Vice-President. Copies of prior orders were produced to substantiate this claim.

Upon a pointed query, counsel for the SHO confirmed that the petitioner resided approximately two and a half kilometers away from the disputed property. The Court noted that the petitioner had no direct connection to the premises and that no fundamental or legal rights relating to light, air, ingress, or egress were being infringed.

Reference was made to earlier judgments of the Court, including Satish Kumar Tomar v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, where petitions filed without direct interest were dismissed as motivated. The Court further cited its observations in Azad Market RWA v. MCD regarding misuse of public interest litigation for extortion.

Finding that statutory authorities had already acted against the construction and that the petitioner lacked locus, the Court disposed of the petitions, imposed costs of ₹50,000 payable to the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust, and directed that future petitions by the petitioner or his NGO be flagged with this order.

Justice Mini Pushkarna observed: “From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the petitioner is staying two and a half kilometers away from the premises in question. Thus, no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner is being violated.”

In reliance on prior precedents, including Satish Kumar Tomar v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1383), the Court reiterated that petitions filed without any connection to the property in dispute and with ulterior motives cannot be sustained. The judgment quoted the earlier decision: “Though unauthorized illegal construction, which is becoming rampant, cannot be countenanced however, I am of the view that a party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.”

Further reference was made to Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530) and Azad Market RWA (Regd.) v. MCD (W.P.(C) 13856/2024 decided on 7 August 2025), where the Court recorded concerns over misuse of the writ jurisdiction by NGOs and individuals attempting to extort money under the guise of public interest litigation. In this context, the Bench stated: “It is very unfortunate that the noble forum of PIL is now being used for blackmailing the citizens. This is not a PIL at all. It is, in fact, a litigation based upon certain photographs resulting in blackmailing type of litigation.”

The Court observed that the petitioner had no legal right affected by the alleged construction and was using the judicial process to further oblique motives. Justice Pushkarna stated: “While on the one hand, strict action has to be taken against the unauthorized construction, at the same time, this Court will not aid and assist any unscrupulous person with a view to extort money from the persons who are raising such unauthorized construction, and who have no relation to the unauthorized construction in the subject property.”

The Court described such conduct as a concerning trend: “Litigants which have no relation to a property, are using untoward approaches to extort or blackmail persons who are raising unauthorized constructions.”

After reviewing the submissions and status reports, the Court concluded that sufficient action had already been taken by the MCD and the police. Justice Mini Pushkarna recorded: “Accordingly, this Court notes that in the present case the requisite action has already been taken by the MCD and the police against the unauthorized construction existing in the property in question.”

However, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of locus standi, reiterating that the petitioner had no concern with the property. It was further ordered: “Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court and the Court is satisfied with the action having been taken by the Statutory Authorities.”

Also Read: ‘Judicial Indiscipline’: Delhi High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail in Cheating Case, Orders Action Against Magistrate and Judge for Staying Arrest Despite Earlier Rejections by High Court and Supreme Court

Justice Pushkarna directed: “Considering the submissions made before this Court, cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner, payable to Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust (‘A/c No. 15530210002995, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch Address: Delhi High Court, IFSC: UCBA0001553’).”

“The Registry of this Court is further directed that whenever any writ petition against any unauthorized construction is filed by Tauqir Alam or by Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha (NGO), copy of this Order shall be attached to the said petition and be brought to the notice of the Court, whenever such petitions are listed in future.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anubhav Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Singh, ASC-MCD with Mr. Rishabh Mittal, Advocate; Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Advocate; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rohish Arora, and Mr. Amit Biduri, Advocates for R-6; Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC and Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate

Case Title: Tauqir Alam v. Ashwani Kumar & Ors.; Tauqir Alam v. Commissioner, MCD & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8401
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 1319/2025 & W.P.(C) 9022/2025
Bench: Justice Mini PushkarnaA