2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SHEETAL GOYAL – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-18879/2025
$~43 to 45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decisioin:12th December, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 18879/2025 & CM APPL. 78614/2025
SHEETAL GOYAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Mr. Aman
Goel, Mr. Saurav Yadav, Advocates
(M:8630180959)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC-MCD with Mr.
Parvin Bansal, Advocate
(M:9911991166)
44
+ W.P.(C) 18880/2025 & CM APPL. 78617/2025
MANJU GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Mr. Aman
Goel, Mr. Saurav Yadav, Advocates
(M:8630180959)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Standing Counsel
for MCD (M: 9811551525)
45
+ W.P.(C) 18882/2025 & CM APPL. 78626/2025
RANI GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Mr. Aman
Goel, Mr. Saurav Yadav, Advocates
(M:8630180959)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate for
MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):
1. The present writ petitions have been filed in respect of the sealing of the property bearing Nos. 226-227, Gali Kunjas, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, owned by the petitioners.
2. This Court notes that another set of petitioners had approached this Court with respect to the same property, in W.P.(C) 16504/2025 and other connected matters, wherein, the Court took notice of the submissions that the respondents without any prior intimation, show cause notice or speaking order, had sealed the properties of the petitioners.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 22nd September, 2025, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. 35312/2024, titled as “Dr. S. Jaitley & Anr. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.”, to submit that the Supreme Court is also seized of the matter with respect to unauthorized construction in the Chandni Chowk area.
5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, at the outset, this Court clarifies that as far as any sealing action or sealing order passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) is concerned, in case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the same, the petitioners ought to approach the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”) for seeking statutory relief.
6. Further, this Court takes note of the order dated 22nd September, 2025, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. 35312/2024, relevant portions of which, read as under:
“xxx xxx xxx I.A. No. 167661/2025
1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of Naval Kishore Gupta, S/o Shri D.B. Gupta, R/o 59, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 06 to implead him as a party-respondent.
2. The application is allowed as prayed for and the applicant is permitted to intervene and assist the Court in the matter of illegal construction in the Chandni Chowk area. He is permitted to place on record the material in support of his contentions, if any, within four weeks.
I.A. No.136938/2025
1. This application has been moved by the Petitioners, seeking, inter alia, directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to seal certain premises in Mandir Wali Gali, Katra Neel due to violation of applicable laws as well as ongoing/attempted illegal construction.
2. The MCD has filed a reply to the said IA, inter alia, pointing out that various properties where unauthorized constructions have been made or which were being misused for other than residential purposes were ordered to be sealed by the MCD in the year 2022. However, those orders were stayed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD in various appeals filed by the shopkeepers. Those appeals are stated to be still pending.
3. The post of the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal is lying vacant as no appointment has been made after the expiry of the previous Presiding Officer. We are informed that such appointment was to be made by the Delhi High Court. If that is so, we request the Chief Justice of the Del