Praveen Kumar Chhabra vs Mcd And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1306 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order No AO/SPZ/5/2174 dated 18.11.2000, by which the premises of the petitioner were ordered to be closed and sealed.

2. The petitioner's case is that he had purchased premises bearing No. 2471, Nalwa Street, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi from one Shri Mohan Singh. The respondent/MCD had passed the sealing order bearing No. AO/SPZ/5/2174 dated 18.11.2000 Annexure P.1 at page 14 of the paper book. The said order was passed on the premise that an industry in the name of M/s. Panesher Works, sole proprietor, Mohan Singh, as being carried out from the premises. It was further stated in the notice that pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court in CW No. 4677/95 M.C. Mehta v. UOI, where closure of all such industries operating in non-conforming area had been ordered, the premises were sealed.

3. Petitioner's case before the court was that he had purchased the promises from Shri Mohan Singh and the order has been passed on the assumption that M/s. Paneshar Works which was the industry of the former owner was being run in the premises. Order described Mr. Mohan Singh as the sole proprietor, Perhaps this had occurred on account of licence of Mr. Mohan Singh in respect of the said premises still having not been surrendered. Petitioner's case is that at his request Mr. Mohan Singh also informed the respondent that he had sold the premises way back in 1996 and also surrendered the licence on 21.11.2000.

4. This court vide orders dated 14.12.2000 directed inspection of the premises to ascertain the actual position. The respondent pursuant to the said inspection have placed a report rather an inventory of the articles found in the premises on the ground, first and second floor. As per inspection, readymade brass statue, wooden partitions, bedsheets, musical instruments, cushion covers etc. were found in the premises. The report/inventory does not itself mention any trade or business being carried out apart from these items being scored or having been found in the premises.

5. Be it may, it is clear that the order of sealing was passed on the premise that the industrial activity by Mr. Mohan Singh, former owner, was being carried out under the name and style of M/s. Panesher Works. This position has been found to be nonexistent on inspection. Leave aside any polluting activity only storage of certain items has been found. Accordingly, the said sealing order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Respondent shall forthwith deasel the premises. It would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if they find that the petitioner is carrying on an activity, which is not permissible at law at the location or for which a licence is required but has not been obtained.

6. I have mentioned this since the contention of the petitioner is that for the storage of these materials, does not require any trading licence. It would be for the corporation to make such "further enquiry as they deem necessary as to whether the petitioner in fact has been carrying on any trade or not and then proceed in the matter.

Writ petition is allowed on the above terms.