High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 02 DEL CK 2002

Sanjay Gupta vs Union Of Indian & Anr.

Delhi High Court, Principal Bench, New Delhi · Decided on 17 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurau, J
CASE NUMBER
W.P.(C) 2228/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 341 words

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

The Petitioner is the lawful allottee and occupant of Flat No. 304, F-Block, CGRC, DDU Marg, a residential accommodation owned and maintained by Respondent No.1 Union of India [UOI]. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that, as per the sanctioned and uniform layout of the residential complex, each flat is provided with an attached servant quarter admeasuring approximately 100 sq. ft., comprising a single room with an attached bathroom and balcony. The Petitioner asserts that Indraprastha Gas Limited has installed Piped Natural Gas (PNG) connections in these servant quarters. According to the Petitioner, the provision of PNG connections in such small and confined spaces is inherently unsafe and fraught with serious fire hazards, thereby posing a grave and continuing threat to the life and property of the residents.

2.

Furthermore, it is contended that the servants’ families blocked stair case and lift lobbies, causing obstruction to the common space. The provisions of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] envisaged a mechanism where District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate is empowered to pass a conditional order for renewal of nuisance which inter alia is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community.

3.

Since the petitioner has not approached the said authority, the Court therefore is unable to comprehensively deal with the controversy unless the petitioner approaches the Judicial Magistrate for redressal of his grievance. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the case of Sh Nilabh Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi1. The petitioner seems to have made the grievances to the other authorities, however, for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance, the concerned Judicial Magistrate would be the appropriate authority to deal with the issue. If the petitioner approaches the concerned Judicial Magistrate, let his application be decided with due expedition in accordance with law.

4.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of. Liberty stands reserved to re-agitate the grievance in case the same is not fully mitigated.

Footnotes

  1. 1.WP(C) 11400/2024