By News Desk 
On Monday, June 9, the Delhi High Court refused to grant an immediate stay on the demolition of an allegedly illegal structure in the Batla House area. The matter was being heard by a division bench comprising Justice Girish Kathpalia and Justice Tejasvi Karia, in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan.
The court scheduled the next hearing for June 11, stating around 6:10 p.m. on Monday that the petition would be heard further on that date. “The petition is being listed for June 11 to allow arguments on two key issues. At this point, we are not inclined to issue a stay, especially since we have been informed that the Supreme Court has already dismissed a similar plea,” the bench noted.
Court’s Observations on the PIL
The bench highlighted that while interim relief had already been granted by a single judge to several individuals in related cases, the current petition was filed in the public interest. Earlier in the day, acting as a single judge, Justice Karia had issued an order to maintain the status quo in response to petitions filed by some local residents.
Previous Relief Granted on June 4
The bench also referred to a similar case in the same Batla House locality, where, on June 4, relief was granted concerning a comparable structure. In that case, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was instructed to respond to the petition within four weeks. The petitioners had challenged a demolition notice issued by the DDA on May 26.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid’s Submissions
Representing MLA Amanatullah Khan, senior advocate Salman Khurshid argued before the division bench that the demolition was scheduled for June 11 and urged the court to halt the process. However, the DDA’s counsel opposed the petition, contending that Khan, as an MLA, is not a directly affected party. The lawyer also pointed out that the Supreme Court had already declined to grant relief to individuals allegedly impacted by the demolition.
The High Court stated that on June 11 it would hear arguments on whether the division bench can proceed with the matter, especially since one of the judges on the bench had already presided over similar petitions and granted partial relief in those cases.