Delhi HC seeks action against PGs without building plans, questions regulatory framework; permits Kiran Bedi to address Court

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the MCD when the law would take its course against buildings whose plans were unavailable and also sought a clear account of the statutory mechanism governing PG accommodations in Delhi.

There are 2453 PGs; you have building plans for only 730. Thats less than one-third. What about the other two-thirds? the bench asked.

The court also questioned whether the authorities had examined the inadequacy of the existing regulatory mechanism for PG accommodations, observing that the MCD affidavit primarily referred to provisions of the Master Plan.

The bench was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the September 6 collapse of a PG building in Satya Niketan, which triggered a wider examination of safety, building permissions and regulation of PG accommodations in Delhi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State and MCD, while Tushar Sannu represented MCD.

During the hearing, MCD counsel Tushar Sannu told the court that the corporation was trying to trace the sanctioned building plans and had also asked property owners to provide them. The bench then asked, When will law take its course?

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said some buildings were 50-60 years old and the authorities were making efforts to trace their plans and other records. The court also questioned the authorities about the extent of inspections carried out and sought specific details of buildings being used as PGs. The Solicitor General sought time to sit with the officers and obtain instructions.

The bench also questioned MCD over figures cited in its affidavit regarding demolitions, sealing and show-cause notices. The court asked whether these figures related specifically to PG buildings or were part of MCDs general enforcement drive. The Solicitor General clarified that the figures were general enforcement figures.

The bench observed that the present proceedings were concerned with PG accommodations and said the authorities should identify the buildings in which PGs were operating instead of relying on general figures relating to unauthorised construction.

According to the MCD affidavit, between September 6 and September 23, the civic body demolished 543 properties, sealed 178 properties, issued 354 show-cause notices for unauthorised construction, 205 sealing show-cause notices and 98 demolition orders.

MCDs compliance affidavit states that its survey across all 12 zones identified 2,453 PG buildings comprising 32,247 rooms, with a tentative aggregate occupancy of approximately 50,529 persons. However, sanctioned building plans could be traced or verified for only 730 buildings from the records presently available with MCD.

The civic body said 2,342 buildings were visibly safe, while 91 required minor repairs, 30 required major repairs and four were in dangerous condition. Eight load-bearing structures above ground plus three floors and 77 framed structures above ground plus four floors were also identified for close monitoring.

The court repeatedly sought clarity on the statutory mechanism governing PG accommodations. Advocate Sameer Vashisht, appearing for the Delhi government, said MCD was looking into the issue and that the High Power Committee on Student Accommodation and Safety would be meeting shortly.

The court asked when the HPC was expected to meet, noting that its previous meeting had taken place on September 21. Vashisht said the government had targeted obtaining the complete information within 60 days, though the process could be expedited. The Solicitor General said he could request the Chief Minister and Education Minister to convene a meeting the following week.

MCDs affidavit states that the High Power Committee had decided to prepare a regulatory framework for PG accommodations and private student hostels, with the Department of Training and Technical Education and the Department of Higher Education to jointly prepare it.

The proceedings arise from the collapse of Property No. 14, Satya Niketan, on September 6. In its affidavit, MCD stated that the building had no sanctioned building plan approved by the corporation and had not been constructed in accordance with any valid permission.

The ground, first and second floors and part of the third floor were constructed during 1970-1980, while the basement and remaining portion of the third floor were added during 1997-98. MCD described the structure as a load-bearing building without an RCC frame and with approximately 4.5-inch-thick brick walls.

The building was being used for shops on the ground floor and PG accommodation on the upper floors. MCD said PG use had continued since 2007 after payment of applicable conversion charges. It further stated that no complaint had been received against the property since January 1, 2026, and there was no booking of unauthorised construction against it in MCDs records.

Following the collapse, MCD inspected around 300 properties in Satya Niketan and found PG accommodation operating in 101 properties. Three properties 74, 75 and 76, Satya Niketan were declared dangerous. Though the notices were challenged before the High Court, the court directed that no PG could operate from the properties until they were found structurally safe. The PG accommodations were subsequently vacated.

Ten other properties were identified as vulnerable and requiring major repairs, with their owners directed to obtain structural audits from IIT Delhi or DTU experts within 10 days. Fourteen properties were found to require minor repairs.

The MCD affidavit states that five officials across the supervisory chain were suspended on September 7 as an immediate administrative measure. They included the Deputy Commissioner, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer concerned.

The Delhi government has also constituted a Magisterial Inquiry into the incident. MCD said the inquiry would examine the permission status of the collapsed building, compliance with building bye-laws and the responsibility, if any, of concerned MCD officials.

The bench also expressed displeasure over Delhi Universitys affidavit concerning student accommodation. When DU counsel said the affidavit had been filed that day and might not yet be on record, the court questioned why such an important document had been filed at the last minute.

After the affidavit was handed over, the bench described it as absolutely vague and questioned the universitys reference to figures and steps without explaining what concrete action had been taken.

You are giving figures, and then you say you are taking steps. Where are those steps? the bench asked. The petitioner informed the court that only 5,698 students were being provided hostel accommodation.

The bench also considered an intervention application filed by Dr Kiran Bedi. The Solicitor General said there was no objection in principle to Bedi addressing the court but expressed concern that several petitions had already been filed by occupants and builders and that allowing numerous parties to intervene could make the proceedings difficult to manage.

However, the bench permitted Bedi to address the court when the matter is next listed. In its order, the court recorded that, having regard to the averments made in her application and after hearing the Solicitor General, Bedi would be permitted to address the court. The bench further directed that pleadings filed in the matter should also be served upon her. Her intervention application was accordingly disposed of.

At the end of the hearing, the bench took on record the affidavits filed by GNCTD, MCD and Delhi University. It directed that copies be furnished to counsel for petitioners in all connected matters and ordered that replies to the affidavits be filed within 10 days. The matter will be taken up after 15 days. (ANI)