Umar Sarif v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions for setting aside the sealing order and order for revocation of Veterinary Trade License dated 18th April, 2025, issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).

2. There is a further prayer for directions to the respondents for restoration of the Veterinary Trade License No. VTLRRWZ018433.

3. It has been further prayed that the respondents be directed not to evict or dispossess the petitioner from his existing vending site/shop at RZR-66, Chanakya Place, Part-II, New Delhi-110059.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been running his shop in compliance with all the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) and the applicable Meat Shop Licensing Policy approved by the MCD.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner was issued an Improvement Notice on 13th March, 2025 by respondent no. 3, alleging deficiencies under the Licensing Policy. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed written reply on 24th March, 2025.

6. However, subsequently the petitioner received a second Improvement Notice dated 26th March, 2025.

7. A comprehensive reply was again submitted by the petitioner, along with a sworn affidavit on 01st April, 2025. However, it is submitted that without any inspection/verification or opportunity of personal hearing, the respondents arbitrarily revoked the license and sealed the petitioner’s premises/shop on 18th April, 2025.

8. It is submitted that aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner filed a representation/appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, West Zone on 24th April, 2025, along with a supporting affidavit. However, no response or hearing has been provided to the petitioner till date.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed another representation with additional documents on 28th April, 2025. However, yet again no hearing has been granted till date. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.

10. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

11. Learned counsel for respondent-MCD submits that the concerned officials shall inspect the premises of the petitioner and requisite action shall be taken accordingly.

12. This Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no opportunity of personal hearing has been granted to the petitioner prior to the sealing of the premises in question and revocation of the said License.

13. This Court takes note of the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that the replies filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the MCD, were neither considered nor any inspection of the petitioner’s premises, was done before sealing the petitioner’s premises and revoking his license. Thus, it is apparent that Principles of Natural Justice have been violated.

14. This Court further takes note of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the petitioner filing a representation/appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, West Zone on 24th April, 2025 and 28th April, 2025, no hearing or relief has been granted to the petitioner till date.

15. Accordingly, it is directed as follows: