2. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 225/2010 PREM SINGH Petitioner Througli; Mr. Sunil Cinaulian, Advocate versus MANEESH RASTOGI & ANR Respondent Tlirough: Mr. Rahul Srivastava for MCD I Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Deepender Hooda for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI ORDER % 05.12.2011 This petition has been preferred under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging willful and deliberate breach of the order dated 01.10.2008 passed in W.P.(C.) No.5498/2008. The operative part of the order reads as follows: "6. Taking into consideration the stand taken by the MCD in the counter affidavit as well as the statement made » on behalf of respondent no.2, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions: (A) Respondent no.2 shall not carry out any construction except in accordance with the sanctioned plan. (B) Respondent no.2 shall reply to the show cause notice issued by the MCD; (C) MCD shall grant personal hearing to respondent no.2 and will thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. 7. MCD shall remain bound by the stand taken by them in their counter affidavit and in case after the personal hearing any action is to be initiated, the same shall be initiated as expeditiously as possible". Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified The grievancepf the petitioneris that despitethe order, without obtaining any sanction, the respondent no.2 has continued to raise construction, and thereby breached the order. It is also the grievance of the petitionerthat the MCD has passed a demolitionorder, yet they have failed to execute the same. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 contends that the applicationto seek sanction had been made in February 2008. The same was neither accepted nor rejected expressly by the respondent MCD. He submits that this is, therefore, a case of deemed sanction, which stood granted with the expiry of sixty days of making of the application. In this regard, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in Pritam Singh Makin v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Others, 2003 III AD (Delhi) 297. Mr. Uppal submits that the statement made by respondent no.2 before the Court on 01.10.2008 was only to the effect that respondent no.2 shall not carry out any construction except in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Since the deemed sanction stood granted, after May 2008, the respondent no.2 was free to carry on construction in accordance with the plan which is deemed to be sanctioned. It is also seen from the record that respondent no.2 had preferred W.P.(C.) No.8668/2008. It appears that this petition was preferred by respondent n.2 to seek compounding and regularization of the existing construction carried on by respondent no.2. In those 18 proceedings,the Court had directedthat till the applicationof the writ petitioner, namely respondent no.2 herein, is decided, no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner. Consequently, the demolition order dated 25.02.2009 which already stood passed in terms of the order dated 01.10.2008 could not be given effect to. Attention is also drawn to the order dated 03.03.2010 passed in ^ aSuitfUed by respondentno.2 and othersagainstthe petitionerherein and others, wherein this Court had permitted the respondent no.2 herein to carry out various activities for completion of the remaining work. It is not in dispute that till date, the MCD has not decided the case of respondent no.2 for compounding/regularization in terms of the building bye laws. The petitioners petition being W.P.(C.) No.3917/2011 is also pending consideration in this regard. In those proceedings also on 20.09.2011, the Court has passed an order that the protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2009 passed in W.P.(C.) No.8668/2009 titled Zf/e Singh v. MCD & Others shall continue to operate in his favour till a decision is taken by the respondent MCD on the application/representation of the petitioner therein, namely Zile Singh, who is respondent no.2 in these proceedings. Consequently,I am of the view that the present petitionfails to disclose a case of willful and deliberated disobedience of the Courts orders. The same is accordingly dismissed. DECEMBER 05, 2011 sr VIPIN SANGHI, J