Delhi High Court Directs MCD To Prevent Recurrence Of Footpath Encroachments, Closes 10-Year-Old Contempt Case

The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other concerned authorities to maintain vigilance and ensure that no projections or extensions from commercial establishments, or display of merchandise outside shops, encroach upon public footpaths.

The Court said that whenever such encroachments are noticed, the authorities must take prompt and appropriate action in accordance with law to remove them and prevent their recurrence.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the directions while disposing of a nearly 10-year-old contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions concerning encroachments on public footpaths.

The Court, however, declined to issue further directions for removal of permanent structures allegedly occupying portions of the footpaths, observing that the petitioner had failed to substantiate the allegations with any material or documentary evidence.

The contempt petition was filed by one Parveen Kumar, alleging violation of May 17, 2016 order, which had directed the concerned authorities to ensure that shopkeepers did not make projections or extensions onto footpaths or display merchandise outside their shops.

Kumar had subsequently moved an application seeking time-bound directions for removal of permanent structures and constructions allegedly encroaching upon public footpaths.

He sought a joint site inspection by senior MCD officials and the concerned police station, besides directions for removal of the encroachments and submission of a site-specific action plan supported by demarcation, measurements and photographs.

The MCD, in its status report dated October 10, submitted that action had already been taken to remove projections, extensions and other obstructions from the footpaths. Photographs were also placed on record to demonstrate the condition of the footpaths after the removal drive.

Kumar, however, continued to allege that encroachments subsisted and that certain buildings and commercial establishments had themselves been constructed over portions of the footpaths.

After examining the status report and photographs, the Court observed that the projections and extensions complained of had been removed and that the footpaths were not obstructed by such encroachments.

It noted that even the photographs submitted by Kumar himself indicated the same.

Regarding the allegation of permanent structures standing on portions of the footpaths, the Court observed that the claim had not been substantiated by any material or documentary evidence.

“A mere submission across the Bar, in the absence of any supporting material, cannot be sufficient to warrant the issuance of further directions,” the Court observed.

It further noted that the proceedings had remained pending for nearly ten years and that the status report, along with the photographs, demonstrated that the authorities had undertaken action to comply with its earlier directions.

It added that the Court could not be expected to continue monitoring the issue of alleged encroachments indefinitely, particularly when the material available did not disclose any subsisting obstruction of the nature complained of.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea seeking further directions and disposed of the contempt petition.