RITA SEHGAL Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has instituted this petition for quashing the order of the respondent no.2 being the Monitoring Committee constituted by the Supreme Court vide orders in M.C. Mehta's case as well as the notice dated 1st July, 2010 issued by the respondent no.1 MCD to the petitioner threatening sealing of the shop of the petitioner in property no.D-14/213, Section 8, Rohini, Delhi on the ground of misuse of running a Beauty Parlour therein. The respondent no.1 MCD in its notice dated 1 st July, 2010 (supra) itself has stated that the same was being issued as per the directions of the Monitoring Committee.

(2.) The counsel for the respondent no.1 MCD appearing on advance notice informs that in pursuance to the notice dated 1 st July, 2010, the premises of the petitioner were sealed yesterday. The counsel for the petitioner also admits the said fact.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of being heard before the action of sealing. It is contended that earlier also threats of sealing were meted out but the respondent no.1 MCD after being satisfied of the petitioner being entitled to use the property for a Beauty Parlour had not sealed the property. It is stated that the property, though situated in a residential area, the use as a Beauty Parlour is permitted under Clause 15.6.3 of the Master Plan Delhi 2021. It is contended that in any case, sealing could not have been effected without hearing.