Shri Bali Arya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being a tenant of Shop No. 57A, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110032. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the Sealing Order dated 04th July, 2025, passed by the respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said Sealing Order dated 04th July, 2025 has been passed by the respondent, without service, and without affording any personal hearing to the petitioner and in clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

3. It is submitted that the respondent has purportedly issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24th October, 2024, which was never served to the petitioner and was only affixed on the wall of the shop. Despite the fact that the petitioner gave a prompt reply dated 28th October, 2024, no hearing or communication followed. It is submitted that on 10th July, 2024, the respondent attempted to forcibly seal the shop, without producing any Sealing Order.

4. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner approached the Civil Courts, Karkardooma on 17th July, 2025, challenging the said sealing action. Subsequently, an appeal was also filed against the Sealing Order dated 04th July, 2025, before the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ATMCD”). Since, the post of Presiding Officer, ATCMCD is lying vacant, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondent-MCD.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD hands over to this Court, the order dated 16th September, 2025, issued by the Civil Courts, Karkardooma, Delhi, in Civil Suit No. 2/2025, filed by the petitioner herein.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD submits that the petitioner firstly filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 2/2025, before the Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi. Even when the said suit was pending, as regards the maintainability, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the ATMCD, followed by the present writ petition.

8. He further submits that the action is being taken by MCD, after following the due procedure of law.

9. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached this Court only with a limited prayer for grant of relief to the petitioner, till the appeal of the petitioner is heard by the ATMCD.

10. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that the earlier suit filed by the petitioner before the Karkardooma Courts was disposed of, on account of the fact that the said suit was held to be not maintainable, in view of the statutory remedy available with the petitioner for filing an appeal before the ATMCD. Thus, since the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy and has filed an appeal before the ATMCD, the action of the petitioner, in that regard, cannot be faulted.

11. Further, without going into the merits of the case, it is directed that since the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the ATMCD, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till hearing is granted by the ATMCD.

12. This Court takes note of the fact that the appeal of the petitioner before the ATMCD was listed on 16th September, 2025. However, as there is no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD at present, no hearing took place.

13. Therefore, in case, there is no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD even by the next date of hearing of the petitioner’s appeal, the protection granted today shall extend to any next date, which is given by the ATMCD.

14. It is further directed that whenever the Presiding Officer of the ATMCD takes charge, within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner herein shall move an application before the ATMCD for taking up his appeal for hearing.

15. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, which shall be decided by the ATMCD, independently, after hearing the parties.