Daily Bread Bakers vs Monitoring Committee & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 5423 Del

#39


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Judgment delivered on: 10.09.2018

W.P.(C) 2988/2018 & C.M. No.11994/2018 (directions)

DAILY BREAD BAKERS                                                        ..... Petitioner
                              versus

MONITORING COMMITTEE & ANR.                                             ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents   : Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel along with Mr. Shashi Gupta and
                        Mr. Sanjay Baniwal, Advocates for respondent No. 2/EDMC.
                        Mr. Satyajit Sarna and Ms. Pallavi Srivastava, Advocates for respondent
                        No. 3/DDA.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                              JUDGMENT

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

prays as follows:-

"a) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order and directions to call for the records pertaining to sealing of as maintained by the respondents with respect to the premises i.e. M/s DAILY BREAD BAKERS, run from Khasra No. 1296 known as

Bawa Potteries, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 comprised in Khasra No.1296 (NEW) and Old Khasra No.2928/2078/1680 having a total area of 4.67 Acres of Village Mehrauli whereby said premises of the Petitioner was sealed on 05.01.2018;

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit quashing setting aside of the sealing order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the Monitoring Committee and to maintain status quo existing prior to sealing on 05.01.2018s in respect of premises M/S. DAILY BREAD BAKERS, run from Khasra No.1296 known as Bawa Potteries, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070 comprised in Khasra No.1296 (NEW) and Old Khasra No.2928/2078/1680 having a total area of 4.67 Acres of Village Mehrauli;

c) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and directions as the act of sealing is non-est, null and void, un-enforceable having been passed without jurisdiction or any cause; and

d) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The present petition assails the sealing order dated 5th January, 2018, passed by the Monitoring Committee, appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in respect of the premises of M/s Daily Bread Bakers, run from Khasra No. 1296, Bawa Potteries Complex, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

3. In this behalf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents, invites my attention to the directions issued by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court on 15th December, 2017, in W.P.(C) No. 4677/1985, titled as "M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors." and in particular, paragraph 37 thereof, to urge that, where the premises are sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, any challenge to the same will lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court alone.

4. In this behalf, it would be profitable to extract the said paragraph 37 of the decision in M.C. Mehta (supra):-

"37. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessary for any person whose residential premises have been sealed for misuse for any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance of the Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the Monitoring Committee which will keep an account of the amounts received by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and approach the Monitoring Committee for relief on the above terms and conditions and on deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs with the Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge to the decision of the Monitoring Committee will lie to this Court only. We are constrained and compelled to make this order given the history of the case and the more than serious observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some entities and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism."

5. A plain reading of the directions contained in the above paragraph, clearly and unequivocally reflect that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had, inter alia, directed that, where the premises are sealed at the instance of

the Monitoring Committee, appointed by it, any challenge to their decision would lie before the Hon'ble Supreme Court only.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that, the submission made on behalf of the official respondents, is untenable, since a proceeding before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the orders passed by the Monitoring Committee can be assailed before this Court as well. In order to buttress his submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to a decision dated 27th February, 2018, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 487/2017, titled as "North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. DCM Limited and Anr.", and in particular, paragraph 56 thereof.

7. A perusal of the relevant grounds in the petition, as well as, the prayer clauses reflects that, the same assails an order dated 5th January, 2018, passed by the Monitoring Committee, inter alia, on the grounds that, the same is unenforceable, having been passed without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, it is asserted that, the power of the Monitoring Committee is circumscribed to passing directions against misuser of residential premises being used for commercial purposes, and that no power exists, with the Monitoring Committee to direct sealing of premises of the petitioner, use of which is prescribed for industrial purpose.

8. In my considered view, in terms of the express directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as elaborated hereinabove, the relief sought in the present proceedings, cannot be granted by this Court and the same is accordingly rejected, whilst reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by way of an appropriate proceeding, to

assail the order dated 5th January, 2018, passed by the Monitoring Committee appointed by it.

9. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 10, 2018 RS