JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J. 

The hotel of the petitioner was sealed on 02.05.2024 by the respondent no.1/District Level Development Authority, Nainital (“the authority”). The petitioner seeks quashing of the Sealing Memo dated 02.05.2024; directions to the respondents to de-seal the property and permit to carry out the repair works pursuant to the permission granted on 30.03.2024 by the authority.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The petitioner runs a hotel in Nainital. She wanted to undertake certain repair works, for which, she applied to the authority and on 30.03.2024, she was granted permission to repair the building including white-washing, flooring tiles, change of doors and windows, etc. The petitioner was carrying out the works when, according to the petitioner, under the oral directions of the respondent no.2/Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital (“the Commissioner”) the building was sealed on 02.05.2024. Subsequently, a recommendation for proceedings under Sections 27(1) and 28(2) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 (“the Act”) was submitted. On 04.05.2024, the authority issued a notice under Section 28(1) of the Act to the petitioner to stop the repair works and he was served with a Notice under Section 27(1) of the Act on 04.05.2024, which was replied by the petitioner. But, no action was taken, therefore, the instant petition.

4. The authority has filed its counter affidavit. In para 5 of its counter affidavit reasons for sealing the building have been given, which are as follows:-

“That it is submitted herein that in the garb of the aforesaid permission for carrying out repairs, it was found that instead of carrying out repairs certain walls have been erected in the basement contrary to the permission so granted and observing such violations committed during inspection carried out by the learned Commissioner, Chairman of the District Level Development Authority, internal walls on all floors have been demolished to convert it into a cafe, the property was sealed on 2^nd of May, 2024 the proceedings were initiated under section 27(1) and 28(1) of the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973 and thereafter the notices have been issued to the petitioner which was duly served on her son on 4th of May 2024 and thereafter on 6th of May 2024.

That even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ajay Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India reported in 1995 SCC (3) 266 has categorically directed that even no commercial constructions should be allowed and the action of the petitioner of raising walls and making an attempt to construct the entirely new café also amount to violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court restraining any commercial construction with the Nainital Municipality.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that entire action of the authority is illegal; the Commissioner has orally ordered for sealing of the building on 01.05.2024, whereas he is an appellate authority under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, his action is bad in the eyes of law. The following points have also been raised on behalf of the petitioner:-

i. The petitioner was carrying out repair works for which, as such no permission is required in view of Section 52(a) of the Act.

ii. Even the petitioner had sought permission to repair the building.

6. Learned counsel for the authority submits that the petitioner was granted permission to repair the building, but he started erecting a wall in the basement, therefore, directions were given by the Commissioner to look into the matter and subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, sealing order has been passed.

7. In the instant matter, after hearing the parties on 30.04.2025, this Court had directed the respondent nos.1 and 2 to explain the following two points:-

“(i) How under the oral order of the respondent no.2, sealing of a premises could be done, which is evident by Sealing M