DEVYANI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner carrying on business in the name and style of "Pizza Hut" at Aggarwal Mall Shop No. 101, First Floor, Plot No. 3, Sector 5, Aashirwad Chowk, Dwarka by this writ petition seeks setting aside / quashing of the order dated 22nd June, 2010 of the Deputy Health Officer of the Public Health Department, Najafgarh Zone of the respondent no.1 MCD revoking the Health Trade License of the petitioner for the reason of violation of terms and conditions of the license. The petitioner was further directed to close the restaurant within three days from the receipt of the notice and threatened with further action otherwise.

(2.) The respondent no.1 MCD had prior thereto issued a show cause notice dated 23rd April, 2010 to the petitioner contending that the petitioner was operating the restaurant aforesaid with a seating capacity of more than 100 seats but with a licence of less than 50 seats; that the restaurant was being run under the most insanitary and un-hygienic condition prejudicial to public health. It was also contended that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion been prosecuted for the same but had not desisted. The petitioner was therefore called upon to show cause as to why its licence should not be revoked.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner submitted a reply dated 24th April, 2010 to the said show cause notice. However, the said reply has not been filed by the petitioner. In continuation of the said reply another reply dated 30th April, 2010 was given stating that at the time of inspection on 23 rd April, 2010 an official meeting of the petitioner was going on at the restaurant aforesaid and it was for this reason that it had appeared to the inspecting team of MCD that the seating capacity of the restaurant was more than 50. It was reiterated that the seating capacity of the restaurant was of 50 seats only. The petitioner also assured the respondent no.1 MCD that it will abide by the improvement instructions issued to it and had rectified the unhygienic conditions pointed out. The respondent no.1 MCD was also requested to re- inspect the premises.