SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Subodh Dalal - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8507 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2018




JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated September 19, 2017 passed by Deputy Health Officer, North Delhi Municipal Corporation thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner dated December 19, 2016 for grant of Health Trade License and has directed for closure of the Spa of the petitioner situated at A 2/15, Princess Road, Model Town I, Delhi.

2. The facts leadings to the filing of the present petition are, the petitioner is running and operating the Spa in the name of `Spa Life Wellness', which is a chain of Spa's in Delhi as well as in various other parts of India. For adopting and maintaining standardized Quality Management System the Spa of the petitioner has been granted with ISO 9001:2015 Certificate for its various Spa. Considering the prospects of running and operating a Spa in the area of Model Town, the petitioner approached the owners of the property situated at Ground Floor of property bearing No. A-2/15, Princess Road, Model Town Phase-I, Delhi, who were offering to let out their property. The petitioner made enquiry about the suitability of the property from the owners for the purpose of setting up and operating the Spa, upon which the owners of the property made enquiry from the office of the respondent and obtained confirmation that the said property can be used for the said purpose. On July 08, 2016 one of the co-owner of the said property filed a RTI application with the respondent seeking information whether the said property can be used for operating Spa and the charges payable, if any for the said purpose. On July18, 2016, on the basis of further confirmation from the officials of the respondent, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.29,416/- towards charges payable for the purpose of running a Spa against due acknowledgment. On July 28, 2016, the petitioner entered into a registered Lease Agreement with the owners of the said property for a term of nine years for the purpose of running a Spa.

3. It is the case of the petitioner, the respondent in its response dated August 01, 2016 to RTI application confirmed that subject to the general condition in para 15.4 and additional conditions given in para 15.7.3 Day Spa shall be permitted in the residential plot abutting road of minimum ROW prescribed in 15.7.2 whether or not the road is notified as Mixed-Street use. The respondents further confirmed that the said property can be used for running and operating a Spa subject to deposit of Rs.29,416/-, which stood already deposited by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced the work of fit-outs, interior and other related work in order to set up a Spa by investing huge amount of over Rs.30,00,000/-. During the set up work, the petitioner vide its letter dated October 29, 2016 even informed the police department about opening of Spa in the said property.

4. It is the case of the petitioner, while he was at the initial stage of setting up Spa from the said property and for obtaining the licenses, permissions, approvals etc the petitioner was shocked to receive a Closure Notice dated December 17, 2016 stating that the petitioner is running and operating a Spa without Municipal Health Trade License and under insanitary & unhygienic conditions. Petitioner was directed to close the business within seven days from receipt of the notice. It is the stand of the petitioner, the said closure notice was issued without first issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. Furthermore, before issuing the said notice neither any official from the office of the respondent visited the said property nor any challan was issued for operating the Spa and the same was issued in absolutely vague, evasive and arbitrary manner.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that vide reply dated December 19, 2016 the petitioner protested to the said notice. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed an application with the respondent for grant of Healt

  • Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top