Delhi High Court
Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari & ... vs Commissioner South Delhi ... on 9 February, 2021
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09th February, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 9209/2020 &CM APPLN. 29711-12/2020
DR. PIRTHIPAL SINGH BHANDARI & ANR. ..... Petitioner
versus
COMMISSIONER SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajjay Arora, Standing Counsel, SDMC
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent-Corporation to
forthwith de-seal the premises of the petitioner and also quash the
order dated 31.05.2019 calling upon the petitioner to make payment of
user charges/penalty with regard to the sealed property. Further
petitioner seeks compensation for the loss suffered on account of the
alleged illegal act of sealing of the property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on order of the
Division Bench of this court dated 29.06.2007 read with order dated
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.02.2021 22:44:33
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
17.09.2008 passed in W.P. (C) 4668/2007 titled 'Delhi Medical
Association Vs. MCD' wherein the notifications of the Corporation
seeking to impose annual charges on Nursing Homes as well as
Medical Practitioners was kept in abeyance. It is stated that the Writ
Petition is still pending and the interim order is still in force and in
view thereof the premises of the petitioner could not have been sealed
or penalty demanded.
4. It is noticed that the Premises of the petitioner was sealed on
23.05.2018 and thereafter petitioner made a representation to the
Commissioner - MCD and even gave a representation to the
Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation
submits that the property was sealed as per the directions issued by the
Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court.
6. It is also noticed that the petitioner had also filed an application
before the Monitoring Committee for permanent de-sealing of the
subject property which has been registered as Case No. 220/2019.
7. The Monitoring Committee by its order dated 22.01.2020 has
allowed permanent de-sealing of the subject property subject to
payment of a penalty amount of Rs. 35,84,272/- and petitioner filing
an undertaking in the form of an affidavit, to seek regularization on
the expiry of the protection period.
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.02.2021 22:44:33
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
8. Since the petitioner has already approached the Monitoring
Committee and the Monitoring Committee by its order dated
22.01.2020 has already passed an order permitting permanent de-
sealing subject to payment of penalty charges, it is not open to the
petitioner to file a Writ Petition before this Court.
9. In case petitioner is aggrieved by the directions of the
Monitoring Committee, or seeks any modification of the order passed
by the Monitoring Committee, the remedy, if any, of the petitioner
would be to either approach the Monitoring Committee or the
Supreme Court.
10. Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that this Court
has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of the case of
the petitioner.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 9, 2021
'rs'
Signature Not Verified
MAGGU
Signing Date:09.02.2021 22:44:33
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
