Sunil Kumar; Ashok Kumr Tanwar; Balkishan Tanwar & Ors. v. Delhi Cantonment Board

10. On the aforesaid affidavits/undertakings being filed, respondent no.2 shall de-seal the premises. The petitioner would also pay the necessary costfor sealing/de-sealing ofthe premises which shall be informed by the respondents to the petitioner.

11. It isfurther clarified that this order shall notpreclude the respondentsfrom takingany othersteps in accordance with law and this order shall not be construed as absolving thepetitioner ofany ofthe consequences ofrunning an industrial unitfrom thepremises." Learned counsel for the petitioners states that similar order be passed inthese petitions as well.Healso statesthatpetitioners areready and willing to file an undertaking by way ofan affidavitunequivocally affirmingthatno industrial or illegal activity shall be carried out from the premises in question and that he is ready to pay the necessary cost for sealing / desealing ofthe premises which shall be informed by the respondent to the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states, he has no objection ifsimilar order is passed in this batch ofpetitions. Accordingly,the petitioners are directed to file an undertaking by way ofan affidavit with the respondent unequivocally affirming that no industrial or illegal activity shall be carried outform the premises in question. Letthe affidavit be filed within one week from today. On the aforesaid affidavit / undertaking being filed, and paying the cost of de-sealing / sealing of the property within one week of intimation by the respondent from today, the property shall be de-sealed. It is further clarified that this order shall not preclude the respondent from taking any other steps in accordance with law and this order shall not be construed as absolving the petitioners of any of the consequences of running an industrial unitfrom the premises. With the aforesaid,the petitions are disposed of.

V.KAMESWARRAO,J APRIL 03,2019/;g Bfof $-3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)3228/2019 BALKISHAN TANWAR& ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr.Gaurav Tanwar,Ms.Shreya Jain and Ms.Rita Kumar,Advs.

VERSUS

^ DELHICONTONMBNTBOARD Respondent Through: Mr.Ankur Mishra,Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO ORDER % 16.07.2019 CM No.27184/2019 This application has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "Under the facts and circumstances hereinabove stated, it is most respectfullyprayed that this Han'hie Court may graciously bepleased to:

I. Allow the present Application and direct the Respondent to de-seal the entire property bearing no. CB-103, Naraina, Delhi Cantt (15 seals) without demanding any additional amount (Rs.1,50,000/-) other than the amount ofRs.10,000/already deposited by the Petitioner.

II. Pass anysuchfurther orders that this Hon'ble Court may deemfitandproper in the circumstances ofthepresentcase." On May30,2019this courthad passedthefollowing order: "This application has beenfiled by the applicant/petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this court on April 3, 2019, whereby the court had directed the respondent to de-seal the r property within a week. It is the submission ofthe learned counselfor the applicant/ petitioner that the premises have multiplefloors and multiple entries and at the time ofsealing respondent had putfifteen different locks and are now claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-for removal offifteen seals @ Rs.10,000/- per seal. He also states, even thoughfifteen seals have been put, respondentshouldcharge onlyfor oneseal. This submission of the learned counselfor the petitioner is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that even though theproperty is one, multiple activities were being carried out by separate units with different entries andeach unit mustbe construedas an independententity, hence for opening the seal thereof, separate costfor de-sealing needs to bepaid. In view ofthe peculiarfacts to understand the situation at the site, I deem it appropriate to call upon the counselsfor the parties to visit the site and give their report to the court on the next date ofhearing. Accordingly, the counsel shall visit the site on June 10, 2019 and shall bring a composite report oftheirfindings before the Vacation Bench on June 12, 2019." Pursuant thereto, a joint inspection has been carried out by the counsels for the parties when the officers of the Cantonment Board were also present. Pursuantthereto a JointInspection Reporthas been filed. Para 3 ofthe reportreads as under: "As this Hon'ble Court has already passed the order of desealing ofthe aforesaidpremises, the wholepremises(14seals) may be de-sealed on payment ofa total additional amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) by the Petitioner to the Respondent as costfor sealing/de-sealing andpenalty. A copy ofthe notes prepared by hand a duly signed by all the parties, at the time ofinspection has been annexed herewith as Annexure A-1 along with thepresentreport." Learned counsel appearing for the respondent states, officers of the Cantonment Board are agreeable to permitthe de-sealing ofthe property on paymentofRs.60,000/- as the cost ofsealing,de-sealing and penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioners is also agreeable to pay the amount ofRs.60,000/- for taking action. Ifthat be so,application stands disposed offor taking further action in accordance with the order dated April 3,2019. ^ V.KAMESWARRAO,J JULY 16,2019/7g V