Delhi High Court
Sh. Sardar Ahmad vs The Commissioner, Edmc And Ors. on 2 July, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: May 02, 2018
Judgment delivered on: July 02, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8254/2017, CM No. 47129/2017
SH. SARDAR AHMAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanobar. Ali, Adv.
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, EDMC AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, Standing
Counsel for EDMC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"In the premises aforesaid, it is humbly and
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:
A pass an order thereby directing the
respondents to de-seal the shop on the ground floor
of the property No. D-51, Gali No.17, Rishi Kardam
Marg, Chauhan Banger, Delhi-110053.
B any other or further order(s) which this
Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case in the interest of
justice."
2. The facts as noted from the writ petition are; the
petitioner was the holder of a Meat Trade License from the
Veterinary Department of the EDMC, granted in the year 2000.
The said license expired on March 31, 2003. It is his case that
the petitioner applied for renewal of the said license on May 16,
2014. The said application was rejected by the respondents on
July 12, 2014 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to
submit the required documents. It is his case that on August 14,
2017, the Veterinary Officer of the respondents sealed the shop of
the petitioner without giving any prior information or notice to
the petitioner.
3. On August 16, 2017, the petitioner filed another
application before the Deputy Director of Veterinary Services
Department of the respondents wherein he undertook that he will
not carry or run the trade of meat without the renewal of a valid
license from the respondents. It is his grievance, despite that, the
seal of the shop has not been removed.
4. The respondents have filed a status report wherein they
have stated that the petitioner had submitted an application for
renewal of the Veterinary Trade License in respect of the meat
shop for running a Halal Meat Shop. The petitioner fulfills the
terms and conditions of the Meat Trade License policy but had
not deposited the requisite fee/payments with the EDMC for
renewal of the said license. Therefore, the renewal of the license
was not effected. They referred to a letter dated November 10,
2017 sent to the petitioner for depositing the requisite
fee/payment for renewal of Meat Trade License. It is stated that
after getting the renewal fee deposited by the petitioner, they
shall renew the license of the petitioner and the shop shall be de-
sealed.
5. In an additional affidavit filed by them, it is their case that
the license was initially sanctioned on June 16, 2001. The license
was valid till March 31, 2006. The petitioner did not apply for
renewal with effect from 2006. It is their case that a demand
notice dated November 10, 2017 was issued to the petitioner for
`3,67,000/-. In other words, it is their case that for last twelve
years, the petitioner has not applied for renewal of license. He
has also not paid renewal fee to the EDMC and was running the
meat shop without any license. The respondents have also stated
that No Objection Certificate / consent from the area municipal
councilor was required as per the new Meat Trade Licensing
Policy with effect from April 01, 2016 to March 06, 2017. The
requirement of No Objection Certificate from the councilor was
set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7621/2017 dated August
30, 2017 Nazim Hussain & Ors. V. EDMC. According to them,
as the petitioner had not applied for renewal of his license within
the above period, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of waiver
of late fee due to conditions of NOC. He was served the demand
notice on November 10, 2017. However, no response has been
received till date.
6. No rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the case of
the petitioner as averred in the writ petition. It is his submission
that when an undertaking has been given by the petitioner, the
respondents are required to de-seal the property.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is
no dispute that the original license of the petitioner expired on
March 31, 2006. There is nothing on record to suggest that
immediately after the expiry of license in the year 2006, the
petitioner had sought the renewal of the license. It appears, the
petitioner was running the trade of meat without a license, at least
till May 16, 2014, when he applied for the renewal of the license.
The said application was rejected on July 12, 2014 on the ground
that he did not submit valid documents. The necessary
consequence of the same is that the shop of the petitioner was
sealed on August 14, 2017. No doubt, the petitioner has given an
undertaking that he shall not carry out the trade of meat without
any valid license but that does not mean that merely on an
undertaking the shop is required to be de-sealed as there are
charges, which are due and payable to the respondents for the
period when the petitioner had carried out the trade of meat
without any valid license. The petitioner has not challenged the
claim for `3,67,000/- by the respondents. In the absence of any
challenge, on any ground, the same cannot be set aside. In the
absence of deposit or in the absence of any challenge to the
amount claimed, the petitioner cannot seek the relief of de-
sealing of the shop. I am afraid in the given facts, the petitioner
shall not be entitled to the relief as prayed for. The petition is
without any merit. The same is dismissed. No costs.
CM No. 47129/2017 (for early hearing)
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the
application has become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 02, 2018/ak
