Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Furniture Block Market Association - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1515 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2022
Exemption - Sealing of Premises - The court directed the respondent to de-seal the premises of the petitioner association and granted an opportunity for a hearing in case of any further cause of sealing, without commenting on the merits of the parties' contentions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction to de-seal the premises of the petitioner association and set aside the show cause notice and sealing order. The properties were sealed on the same day the sealing order was passed, without granting an opportunity for challenging the order or a personal hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to de-seal the premises and granted an opportunity for a hearing in case of any further cause of sealing. The court clarified that it did not consider or comment upon the merits of the parties' contentions.
Issues: The issues included the lack of opportunity for challenging the sealing order, absence of a personal hearing, and the liability of conversion charges for the subject market.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assurance given by the members of the petitioner association to approach the DDA for clarification on the issue of payment of conversion charges, leading to the agreement to de-seal the premises.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with a direction to de-seal the premises, granting an opportunity for a hearing in case of any further cause of sealing, and reserving all rights and contentions of the parties.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - CM aPPL.4307/2022 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1515/2022 & CM aPPL. 4306/2022
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to de-seal the premises of the members of the petitioner association which were sealed on 20.01.2022 and further seeks setting aside of the show cause notice dated 22.12.2021 and sealing order dated 20.01.2022.
3. Learned counsel submits that no opportunity of challenging the sealing order was granted to the petitioners as the properties were sealed the very same day on which the sealing order was passed.
4. Learned counsel further submits that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioners prior to passing of the sealing order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.1 is incorrectly stating that conversion charges are liable to be paid whereas no conversion charges are liable to be paid for the subject market.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the members of the petitioner association had met the Commissioner yesterday and assured the Commissioner that they shall be approaching the DDa for the purposes of seeking a clarification with regard to the issue of payment of conversion charges and in view thereof the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation has agreed to de-seal the subject premises and accordingly subject premises would be de-sealed for the time being to enable petitioners to provide the requisite clarification from DDa.
8. In view thereof this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to de-seal the premises of the members of the petitioner association forthwith.
9. It is clarified that in case any further cause of sealing arises an opportunity of hearing would be granted to the petitioners and some reasonable time would be afforded to the petitioners to take legal recourse in accordance with law.
10. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the contention of either parties. all rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
AI
The court emphasized the importance of granting an opportunity for a hearing and providing a chance for legal recourse in case of any further cause of sealing, without expressing any opinion on the m....
The court affirmed the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to be heard before punitive administrative actions, highlighting the principles of natural justice.
The court affirmed the necessity of a personal hearing before administrative decisions regarding de-sealing are made, emphasizing the importance of due process.
The High Court will not entertain a Writ Petition when alternative remedies are available through administrative bodies like the Monitoring Committee.
The Monitoring Committee's order permitting permanent de-sealing subject to payment of penalty charges prevails, and the petitioner's remedy lies in approaching the Monitoring Committee or the Suprem....
Municipal corporations must expeditiously consider applications for de-sealing properties in accordance with prevailing laws, requiring such applications to be submitted first.
The court ruled that the petition was satisfied as the flat in question had been permanently de-sealed by the MCD.
The court has the discretion to decline certain prayers while allowing alternative reliefs, taking into account the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
A court may grant limited, temporary de-sealing of a premises under official supervision to allow a tenant to retrieve personal belongings, without prejudice to the ongoing legal proceedings before t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
