IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Hemant Chandra Sharma - Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council - Respondent
CM(M) 1605 of 2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure - Application for de-sealing premises and revival of appeal - The court declined to entertain the direction to de-seal the premises but allowed the revival of the appeal against the sealing order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought de-sealing of premises or revival of appeal against the sealing order, as the application for repairs and renovation had been rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the direction to de-seal the premises but allowed the revival of the appeal against the sealing order. The petitioner's undertaking to withdraw one of the writ petitions was taken on record.
Issues: Application for de-sealing premises and revival of appeal, multiplicity of proceedings due to separate writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the revival of the appeal against the sealing order, considering the petitioner's undertaking to withdraw one of the writ petitions to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revival of the appeal against the sealing order and directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner's other petition was disposed of, and the scheduled date was cancelled.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 64921/2023
1. This is an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') seeking alternative prayers which are reproduced as under:
"(a) to de-seal the Premises No. E-1, Radial Road & Middle Circle, E- Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001 subject to furnish of an "Undertaking" before the Hon'ble Court that Petitioner will not carry out "Repairs & Renovations" in the premises in question till the time Respondent / NDMC / HCC sanction - approve the permission and allow the Petitioner to carry out Repairs & Renovations in the premises in question;
OR IN ALTERNATIVE
To permit the Petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of Sealing Order No. D/368-69/EE(E-BR) 2023 dated 20.05.2023 as was challenged in Appeal No. 582/ATMCD/2023 before Ld. ATMCD;
(b) pass any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
(Emphasis Supplied)
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the application filed before the Respondent for carrying out repairs and renovation has been rejected and therefore, the Petitioner has been left remediless.
3. This Court is not inclined to entertain prayer `a', whereby the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent to de-seal the premises.
4. However, this Court is inclined to allow the alternative prayer in the application, seeking leave to revive Appeal No. 582/ATMCD/2023 which was initially filed against the sealing order dated 20.05.2023 passed by the Respondent herein.
5. It is a matter of record that the said appeal was disposed of on 21.09.2023 on the statement made by the Petitioner herein, without deciding the same on merits.
6. Accordingly, the said alternative prayer is allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`ATMCD') dated 21.09.2023 disposing of the Appeal No. 582/ATMCD/2023 is hereby set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number.
7. The parties are directed before ATMCD on 21.12.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Petitioner has filed two separate writ petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 13477/2023 and 13705/2023 on the same cause of action and the sealing order dated 20.05.2023 is also a subject matter of challenge in the said writs. He states that, therefore, this will lead to multiplicity of proceedings.
9. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that he undertakes to this Court that since his statutory right of appeal is being restored, he will withdraw W.P.(C) 13477/2023 on the next date of listing before the concerned Court. The statement of the Petitioner is taken on record and he is bound down to the same.
10. He states that W.P.(C) 13705/2023 already stand dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023. The said statement is taken on record.
11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1605/2023
12. In view of the orders passed in CM APPL. 64921/2023, the petitioner does not press for any further relief.
13. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending applications are disposed of.
14. The date of 10.01.2024 stands cancelled.
AI
The court has the discretion to decline certain prayers while allowing alternative reliefs, taking into account the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
The court affirmed that sealing properties during repairs is justified under statutory rights, emphasizing compliance with prior repair orders via contempt jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the petition was satisfied as the flat in question had been permanently de-sealed by the MCD.
The High Court emphasized the necessity of using the statutory remedy of the Appellate Tribunal for issues related to property sealing and deviations, granting interim protection for two weeks.
The court's decision was based on the application of Section 151 of CPC and the need to address discrimination and inaction by the respondent.
The court established that the exercise of sealing powers under the Municipalities Act must be proportional to the alleged violations, and minor renovations do not warrant such extreme measures.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.