The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on a petitioner identified as a “serial litigant” for filing multiple writ petitions against various properties with “oblique motives.” While allowing the withdrawal of the petition, the bench presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to take action against the unauthorized construction in the subject property in accordance with the law.
Case Background
The petitioner, Shri Hardeep Singh Hanspal, approached the High Court seeking directions to the MCD to demolish alleged illegal construction at property bearing No. C-6/85, Sector-15, Rohini, North West Delhi.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the MCD informed the Court that this was the “fifth round of litigation by the petitioner,” involving petitions filed with respect to different properties in the same area. The MCD submitted details of the petitioner’s previous litigations:
- First Petition: Filed on April 7, 2025, regarding property No. C-6/44, Sector-15, Rohini. The petitioner did not pursue this matter.
- Second Petition: Filed regarding property No. C-7/38, Sector-15, Rohini. The petitioner later submitted he did not wish to pursue it, claiming the owner/occupier had already started to remove the illegal construction and encroachment himself.
- Third Petition: W.P.(C) 6793/2025 regarding property No. C-8/5, Sector-15, Rohini. This was disposed of on May 20, 2025, noting MCD had initiated action against the unauthorized construction.
- Fourth Petition: A contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the May 20, 2025 order. This was filed within four days of the order. The petitioner later withdrew this, stating the owner/occupier had started to remove the illegal construction and encroachment himself.
The current petition regarding property No. C-6/85 was the fifth such petition.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the MCD argued that the petitioner has been filing petitions regarding multiple properties but subsequently not pursuing them. The counsel stated, “There may be other petitions as well… on account of which he is not aware of the full information.”
Supporting the MCD’s stance, the counsel for Respondent No. 3 (the private party) submitted that the petitioner is a “blackmailer and has been filing various petitions with regard to multiple properties in the area in question.”
Faced with these submissions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that he wished to withdraw the present writ petition.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the petitioner appeared to be a “serial litigant” who filed petitions against various properties but failed to press them on the grounds that the owners had started removing the construction themselves.
The Court noted:
“Apparently, the motive of the petitioner does not seem to be bonafide and the petitions seem to have been filed with oblique motives. This Court has already held in a number of judgments that no party can seek to misuse the process of the Court, by filing petitions for oblique motives.”
The Court relied on its previous decision in Manorama Sakkerwal Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. (Cont. Cas (C) 1051/2025), reiterating that a petitioner approaching the writ court “must come with clean hands.” The Court quoted from that judgment, stating:
“The facts disclosed before this Court are very serious in nature and no party can be allowed to use the process of this Court for ulterior motives and with a view to extort money from another party on the basis that such party is carrying out unauthorized construction.”
Justice Pushkarna further remarked on the petitioner’s conduct:
“Further, the conduct of the petitioner in filing petitions and not pursuing the same, also, does not inspire confidence and is a clear pointer to the fact that the petitions have been filed by the petitioner for self-serving and disagreeable motives… This Court shall not entertain any petition, which is filed for extraneous or self-serving ends.”
Decision
The Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition but imposed a cost of ₹50,000 (Fifty Thousand Rupees) to be paid to the Delhi High Court Bar Association (D.H.C. B.A.) Costs Account within four weeks.
However, regarding the issue of illegal construction, the Court clarified that while it would not allow the misuse of the legal process, unauthorized construction must still be addressed. The Court noted the MCD’s submission that the “unauthorized construction in the property in question, already stands booked.”
Concluding the matter, the Court held:
“Accordingly, MCD is enjoined upon to take action against the unauthorized construction existing in the property, after following the due procedure, in accordance with law.”
The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on January 9, 2026, for compliance regarding the payment of costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri Hardeep Singh Hanspal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
- Case Number: W.P.(C) 18223/2025 & CM APPL. 75329/2025
- Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna
- Citation: 2025:DHC:10778
