New Delhi, November 5: Delhi Police had alerted the Municipal Corporation of Delhi about alleged unauthorised construction at the Chawri Bazar building that collapsed on Thursday, nearly five months before the incident, according to reporting by Hindustan Times and The Indian Express. The disclosure raises a question central to the inquiry now ordered by the Delhi government: what happened after the civic body was warned about the work?
Hindustan Times, citing a senior police officer familiar with the matter, reported that police informed MCD on June 15 about unauthorised construction at a property in the Gali Sheesh Mahal area of Chawri Bazar. The officer said police were not aware of any action taken by the civic agency. The newspaper said it sought a response from MCD but had not received one at the time of publication.
The Indian Express separately reported that Deputy Commissioner of Police Rohit Rajbir Singh said police had sent a letter to MCD asking it to halt the work, but that construction had continued. The two reports make the earlier warning a significant part of the collapse investigation. They do not, by themselves, establish which official received the communication, what follow-up occurred inside MCD or whether any particular officer caused the eventual failure.
The three-storey building under construction collapsed at about 9.50 am on Thursday in Gali Sitara, near Chawri Bazar Metro station. Two people died and four were injured, according to police and civic officials cited by news organisations. Chief Minister Rekha Gupta ordered an inquiry, directed that an FIR be registered against the contractor and called for the suspension of the area assistant engineer and junior engineer.
Also read: Old Delhi Building Collapse Kills Two; MCD Suspends Two Engineers
The June 15 communication is important because it predates the collapse by almost five months. The Hindustan Times account said the police had informed MCD about unauthorised construction at the site and that the officer quoted by the newspaper was not aware of any action by the civic body. The Indian Express report also carried the police account that a letter had been sent asking MCD to stop the work.
Neither report provides the full text of the June communication or an MCD file showing how it was processed. It is therefore not yet possible to establish whether the letter was formally received, which department or officer was assigned to it, whether an inspection followed, or whether a notice or stop-work direction was issued. Those records will be central to determining whether the warning was acted on and, if not, where the process broke down.
The civic response after the collapse has included suspending an assistant engineer and a junior engineer. The MCD orders, as reported by ThePrint and other outlets, cited a prima facie case of serious dereliction of duty and said the suspensions would remain in place pending further inquiry. A suspension is an administrative measure; it is not a final finding of misconduct or proof that either official was responsible for the structural failure.
The chief minister also directed that an FIR be registered against the contractor responsible for the construction. Police said the building work was unauthorised, while reports citing an MCD official said no building plan had been sanctioned. The investigation must establish who commissioned the work, who carried it out, what approvals were sought or refused and whether any stop-work order was served and enforced.
Initial accounts described the structure as a ground-plus-two-storey building under construction. Officials told reporters that work was under way when the building gave way. One MCD official said workers had been removing a support system beneath the roof and described the material used as non-engineered and not properly set. Those are preliminary accounts and should not be treated as a final engineering conclusion before investigators examine the site, construction sequence and materials.
The narrow lanes around Chawri Bazar added to the difficulty of the rescue operation. The Indian Express reported that the collapsed structure was attached to neighbouring buildings on three sides and that the lane was only around three to four feet wide in parts, restricting access for cranes and earth-moving equipment. The incident also raised concerns about adjoining structures, with police reporting that nearby buildings had developed cracks and residents were moved out as a precaution.
Two people were recovered dead and four others were taken to hospital with injuries, according to the initial official accounts. The identities of the deceased had not been established in the reports reviewed for this article. The inquiry will also need to reconcile the number of workers present at the site with statements from the contractor, neighbours and rescue agencies.
The city government said the injured should receive medical treatment and that assistance would be provided to affected families. Those immediate steps address the consequences of the collapse, but they do not answer the longer-term question of how construction proceeded at a site that police say had already drawn the attention of civic officials.
Building-control enforcement depends on more than the existence of rules. A complaint or police communication has to be logged, assigned to the responsible department, examined by qualified staff and followed by a decision that can be checked later. If construction is unauthorised or unsafe, the authority may need to issue a notice, stop work, restrict access or take other action permitted by law. The record should show what was done and when.
For a dense commercial neighbourhood such as Chawri Bazar, the consequences of a missed warning can extend beyond the site itself. Older buildings stand close together, streets can be too narrow for heavy emergency vehicles and repair or construction work may take place beside shops, storage spaces and homes. An unsafe alteration can expose labourers, occupants, traders and passers-by to risk, while a collapse can damage adjoining properties and obstruct access for rescue teams.
The investigation therefore needs to test the full chain of responsibility. That includes the building owner, contractor, site supervisor, engineers, inspectors and officials responsible for responding to the earlier communication. It should establish whether the work had been stopped, whether any order was ignored, what structural supports were in place and whether the materials and methods met applicable safety requirements. The June 15 letter, MCD’s inward registers, inspection records and any notices served at the property could help establish the sequence.
It is equally important to distinguish what is known from what remains alleged. The collapse, the deaths and injuries, the inquiry order, the contractor FIR direction and the suspension of two civic engineers have been reported by multiple news organisations. The claim that police warned MCD months earlier is supported by reporting that cites police sources, but the full communication and the civic body’s response have not been made public in the accounts reviewed. No final inquiry has established individual criminal or administrative responsibility.
The next steps should include disclosure of the notice trail, a technical assessment of the building and a clear account of any action taken by MCD between June and November. The city’s inquiry will also need to explain why work continued if a stop-work warning was issued and whether the same enforcement gaps exist at other sites in the area. Until those records and findings are available, the prior-warning report is a serious lead for investigators, not a concluded finding of negligence.