Mor Singh Kandari And Ors vs Mcd And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 1134 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 7804/2011

                                   Date of Decision:17th February, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
MOR SINGH KANDARI AND ORS                           ..... Petitioners
                   Through:         Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv.

                  versus

MCD AND ORS                                          ..... Respondents

                        Through:    Mr. Ajay Arora, Adv. with
                                    Mr.K.Datta, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)

C.M.No.2181/2012

1. The present application is filed by the petitioners praying inter

alia for directions to the respondents/MCD to de-seal their shops and

allow them to continue their business from the allotted sites at

Pitampura, Rohini Zone, in view of the status quo order dated

08.11.2011 passed in the present petition. Counsel for the petitioners

states that on 14.2.2012, the respondent/MCD had taken sealing

action in respect of the tehbazari sites in question. She further states

that before taking the sealing action, the respondent/MCD did not pass

any revocation order in terms of the second set of notices to show

cause issued to the petitioners and, therefore, their sealing action is

bad in law and liable to be set aside.

2. Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents/MCD

had issued notices to show cause to the petitioners in November, 2011

pointing out that they were running the tehbazari sites in breach of the

terms and conditions of allocation and asking them as to why action of

revocation of tehbazari sites should not be taken against them. It is

contended by him that none of the petitioners replied to the said

notices to show cause and they submitted their replies only after a

second set of notices to show cause were issued to them in December

2011, again calling upon them to explain as to why their tehbazari

sites may not be revoked in view of the fact that they had not

submitted any reply to the earlier notices to show cause dispatched to

them.

3. Counsel for the respondents/MCD points out that the entire

action as proposed to be taken by the respondents/MCD had been duly

brought to the notice of the Court on 24.01.2012 and in the order

passed on the said date, it was clarified that the status quo order

granted on 08.11.2011 would not preclude the respondents/MCD from

taking necessary action as per law in respect of the tehbazari sites in

question on account of other violations, if any, committed by the

petitioners, which are actionable under the DMC Act, 1957. He

submits that it was only after obtaining the aforesaid clarification that

the respondents/MCD had proceeded to take sealing action against the

petitioners as they had continued to violate the terms and conditions

of allotment of tehbazari sites as mentioned in the respective notices

to show cause issued to them. He further states that it is not a case

where the petitioners alone have been targeted by the MCD, rather,

the respondents/MCD is taking such sealing action in respect of all the

tehbazari sites in the Rohini Zone wherever breach of terms and

conditions of allotment has been noticed by the Department. It is

submitted that till date, respondents/MCD has taken sealing action in

respect of 17 tehbazari sites in Rohini Zone and further action shall be

taken in the course of the day in respect of 4 other sites in Rohini

zone. He, however, points out that the respondents/MCD has been

careful by refraining to take any revocation action against the

petitioners in view of the status quo order operating in their favour.

4. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are

aggrieved on account of the fact that although the notices to show

cause issued by the respondents/MCD were duly replied to by the

petitioners, the respondents/MCD have taken sealing action in respect

of tehbazari sites allocated to them, without considering their

submissions.

5. In view of the aforesaid grievance raised by learned counsel for

the petitioners, it is deemed appropriate to direct the

respondents/MCD to consider the representations of the petitioners in

reply to the notices to show cause and pass appropriate orders

thereon. The said orders shall be passed within a period of two weeks

from today under written intimation to the petitioners. In case the

respondents/MCD arrives at the conclusion that the petitioners are in

breach of any of the terms and conditions of allotment then, they be

given a reasonable time to remove the said breaches and upon the

petitioners expressing in writing their readiness and willingness to

remove the said breaches and giving an undertaking to use the

tehbazari sites allotted to them in accordance with the terms of the

allotment within one week from the date of the decision conveyed by

the MCD, the same shall be duly considered by the respondents/MCD

and the decision taken in that regard shall be duly communicated to

the petitioners within one week from the date of receipt of the

undertakings furnished by each of them separately.

6. The application is disposed of.

Dasti to the parties.

HIMA KOHLI, J FEBRUARY 17, 2012 'anb'