Sh. Vijender Singh vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation
2018 Latest Caselaw 408 Del

$~38
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Date of Judgment :16th January, 2018
+       W.P.(C) 11715/2017
        SH. VIJENDER SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                            Through       Mr.Arvind Wishwabandhu, Advocate.
                            versus
        EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION                         ..... Respondents
                            Through       Mr.G.D. Mishra, Standing Counsel for
                                          EDMC alongwith Dr.Somsekhar,
                                          DHO/Shahadra South (EDMC).
CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
         HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to operate and carry out his business by running a Dhaba at Gharoli Dairy Chowk, Gharoli Dairy Farm, in front of Kathuriya Dairy, Mayur Vihar Phase-III, Delhi.

2. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has a valid health trade license. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has an electricity connection since 26.07.2014.

3. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 had entered appearance on 02.01.2018.

W.P. (C) Nos.11715/2017

4. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner cannot be removed nor his license can be cancelled without following the principles of natural justice.

5. Today, Mr. Mishra, on instructions, submits that the trade license of the petitioner has been cancelled and a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. A copy has been supplied to counsel for the petitioner.

6. Let reply to the show cause notice be filed within one week. The petitioner would be given a personal hearing and thereafter a reasoned order would be passed. Counsel for petitioner at this stage submits that he does not wish to press this petition and seeks leave to approach this Court again, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order.

7. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with leave as prayed for.

G.S.SISTANI, J.

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.

JANUARY 16, 2018/ck/

W.P. (C) Nos.11715/2017