CCP 130/2008 & 1113 of 2006 . Page 1 Of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: February 23, 2010 Date of Order: 6th April, 2010 06.04.2010 (1) CONT.CAS(C) 1113/2006 D-BLOCK BHAJANPURA VIKAS SAMIT .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Advocate Versus ASHOK KUMAR NIGAM, COMMR MCD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates. And (2) CONT.CAS(C) 130/2008 KANTA RANI & ROS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Aditya Madan and Mr. Ajit Dayal, Advocates. Versus O.P.UPADHYA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal and Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. By these contempt petitions, the petitioners have alleged that the order dated 17th February, 2006 passed in WP(C) no. 3203/2005 had been grossly violated by MCD. The order dated 17th February, 2006 reads as under: CCP 130/2008 & 1113 of 2006 . Page 2 Of 3 “(1) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the writ petition could be disposed of binding MCD to the stand adopted in the counter affidavit. (2) As per counter affidavit filed, MCD has stated that it took up the job of road widening in D-Block, Bhajanpura but could not proceed ahead due to a suit filed by some residents in Suit No. 2043/2001. Counter affidavit further states that on 19.11.2001 interim order passed in the suit dated 1.10.2001 was modified. Reference has been made to some contempt petition. (3) In view of the response filed, MCD is directed to proceed ahead with road widening in D-Block, Bhajanpura so as to have a road width of 9 meters. If MCD faces any problem in the form of any injunctive relief by any party, the present order should be brought to the notice of the said court. (4) Dasti on payment of charges.” 2. Along with the W.P. was the guide map of D – Block, Bhajanpura, Delhi showing the proposed road of Bhajanpura which was to be widen. In CCP No. 130 of 2008 the allegations made by the petitioners are that respondents were not widening the proper road and the road widening was being done at a different road resulting into damage to the houses of the petitioners. A site plan of D-Block, Bhajanpura has been filed where yellow highlighted portion has been shown by the petitioners as the road of D-Block, to be widened and dark black lines have been shown as gali Nos. 16, 17 and 18, the widening of which was allegedly being done by the MCD. It is alleged that MCD was not supposed to widen these galies and in the garb of widening the main road, the MCD has demolished part of the premises of the petitioners and others. It is stated that clear directions were given to MCD not to demolish the houses or property of the petitioners and houses in galies no. 16 to 18 vide order dated 29th November, 2001. 3. I have gone through the sequence of orders passed by this Court. This colony was CCP 130/2008 & 1113 of 2006 . Page 3 Of 3 an unauthorized colony which was sought to be regularized. At the time of regularization of this colony, MCD had prepared a site plan for regularization and a plan of the main road, to pass through the colony. This Court vide order dated 17th February, 2006 had made it clear that MCD has to go ahead with the widening of the road as per plan and even if any stay order has been granted by any Court, this order should be brought to the notice of that Court. The MCD has placed on record photographs showing that it has undertaken the widening of road in accordance with the orders of the Court. A perusal of these photographs shows that people on both sides of the road had tried to extend their houses on the road itself. Some have constructed ramp, platforms and some have constructed stairs on the road, some have projection, chhajjas and the efforts of people on both sides of the road have been to narrow down the already narrower road. 4. I consider that none of the petitioners has any cause for contempt of the Court. The order of this Court was clear. The map of D Block of Bhajapura, as per which the Colony was to be regularized, shows that the main road was to pass through galies no. 16 to 18 and not as claimed by the contemnors. 5. The MCD has also filed an affidavit that it has complied with the directions of the Court. 6. I find no merit in these contempt petitioners. The contempt petitions are dismissed. April 06, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. acm