PARVEEN AHUJA Vs. MCD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing the action of respondent No.1/MCD in sealing the shop of the petitioner situated at premises bearing No.7/56, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi, being run under the name and style of M/s Ahuja Tailors.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid shop was being run by the father of the petitioner since 29.11.1960. He submits that on 03.03.2008, the said shop was sealed by respondent No.1/MCD W.P.(C) 2816/2011 Page 2 of 6 without issuing a notice to show cause to the petitioner. From 04.03.2008 to 19.06.2009, the petitioner made several representations before the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court as well as before respondent No.1/MCD for temporary/permanent de-sealing of the said shop. Finally on 19.06.2009, the said shop was permanently desealed by respondent No.1/MCD under the directions of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court (Annexure P-4). Thereafter, the petitioner continued to conduct his business from the aforesaid shop right upto 30.03.2011, when the officers of respondent No.1/MCD suddenly came to the shop of the petitioner and re-sealed the same, without issuing him any notice to show cause or affording an opportunity of hearing to him.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner kept running from pillar to post to ascertain the cause of the sealing action undertaken by respondent No.1/MCD on 30.3.2011, but to no avail. Finally, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the Executive Engineer, MCD, raising queries as to the basis on which his shop was sealed, the name of the authority under whose order the same was sealed and as to whether any notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner regarding the sealing action. As per the reply dated 26.04.2011 received by the petitioner from the MCD on 01.05.2011, the shop in question was re- sealed on 30.03.2011 on the W.P.(C) 2816/2011 Page 3 of 6 directions of the Monitoring Committee and it was further stated that no notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner before sealing the said shop. Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 18.05.2011 issued by MCD to the petitioner, wherein it was mentioned that based on the petitioner's request dated 19.04.2011, a report was forwarded to the Monitoring Committee, and vide order dated 12.05.2011, the said Committee observed that the premises had been rightly sealed as no mixed use is permissible in an unauthorized construction. Further, the MCD was directed to take necessary action regarding the unauthorized construction in the premises. As a result, the request of the petitioner for de-sealing of the shop was declined by the Monitoring Committee. Pertinently, the aforesaid communication dated 18.05.2011 was addressed by the respondent/MCD to the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 02.05.2011 passed in the present case, wherein a direction had been issued to the MCD to request the Monitoring Committee to take a decision on the pending application of the petitioner within 10 days, under written intimation to the petitioner.