Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Amit Goel - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P(C) 1182 of 2021 & CM Appl. 3331 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for de-sealing of shops. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding amalgamation and representation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's direction for the hearing process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. ordering the conclusion and publication. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to de-seal part of shops Nos.44, 45 and 46, Local Shopping Complex, Sheikh Sarai, Phase-II, New Delhi-110017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD for short) which is pending. He submits that the ground of sealing was that petitioner had amalgamated the three shops besides certain alleged unauthorised constructions.
4. Learned counsel submits that in so far as the issue of amalgamation is concerned, ATMCD permitted the petitioner to approach the DDA for necessary permission. He submits that DDA by its letter dated 24.09.2019 has permitted amalgamation of the three shops in terms of its circular dated 06.05.2008.
5. Learned counsel submits that the requisite charges demanded by DDA have already been paid to DDA. He submits that despite the same, respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation is not de-sealing the shops. He submits that he has also given a representation dated 28.11.2019 which is still pending.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - South Delhi Municipal Corporation under instructions submits that the representation of the petitioner is pending and the same shall be disposed of within a period of three weeks after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 05.02.2021 at 2.00 p.m.. The Deputy Commissioner shall hear the petitioner/his authorized representative on the said date or thereafter and then dispose of the representation by a speaking order within a period of three weeks from today.
8. Petitioner is permitted to produce additional documents and material at the time of the hearing.
9. It is clarified that this is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and without prejudice to the proceedings pending before the ATMCD.
10. All rights and contentions of parties are reserved.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
AI
The court affirmed the necessity of a personal hearing before administrative decisions regarding de-sealing are made, emphasizing the importance of due process.
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.
Sealing orders related to building renovations cannot stand if there is insufficient evidence of load-bearing walls, and if the work conforms to building bye-laws.
Undertakings by parties can effectively resolve legal disputes, allowing for the dismissal of petitions when primary issues are adequately addressed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of internal partition walls, which are not load bearing, does not require prior permission under the building bye laws.
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....
Municipal corporations must expeditiously consider applications for de-sealing properties in accordance with prevailing laws, requiring such applications to be submitted first.
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.
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
