Raj Kumar & Anr. vs Delhi Waqf Board
2022 Latest Caselaw 524 Del

                                      $~41

                                      *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      %                                  Judgment delivered on: 18.02.2022

                                      +      W.P(C) 3017/2022 & CM APPL.8764-65/2022

                                      RAJ KUMAR & ANR.                                      ..... Petitioners

                                                                versus

                                      DELHI WAQF BOARD                                     .....Respondent
                                      Advocates who appeared in this case:
                                      For the Petitioner: Mr. Santhosh Krishnan and Ms. Sonam Anand, Advocates.

                                      For the Respondent: Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, Standing Counsel for Delhi Waqf
                                                          Board with Ms. Ramsha Shan, Ms Sabika Ahmad,
                                                          Advocates and Ms Shaista Siddiqui, Law Officer, DWB.

                                      CORAM:-
                                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                                          JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner seeks a declaration that the seal placed by the respondent on shop Nos. 1462-63, Lal Masjid, Dariba Kalan, Delhi has been illegally put and further seeks a direction to de-seal the premises.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on 17.02.2022 had sought time to take instructions.

3. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that

Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA MAGGU Signing Date:18.02.2022 Signing Date:19.02.2022 10:08:38 20:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.

submits that the seal has been removed. He submits that there is an apprehension that petitioner has sub-let the premises or is likely to sub-let the premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions undertakes that petitioner has neither sub-let the premises nor intends to sub-let the same to any third party.

5. The undertaking is accepted.

6. Since the property has been de-sealed, no further orders are called for in the petition. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

FEBRUARY 18, 2022 rk

Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA MAGGU Signing Date:18.02.2022 Signing Date:19.02.2022 10:08:38 20:35 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.