M/S CAFE HI 5H (A UNIT OF ALTERNATIVE VENTURES PVT. LTD.) v. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (S.D.M) AND ANR.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptipnsi^^ ^ W.P.(C) No. 3916/2018 & CM APP No:15505/2618 ^

2. Issue notice. 2.[1] Ms. Urvi Mohan accepts notice for respondent No.l/SDM (Hauz Khas), while Mr. Mahapatra accepts notice for respondent No.2/DPCC.

3. Learned counsels for the respondents say that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, that is, on 7.2.2018, in W.P.(C) No.585/2018, titled: M/s Bondstreet Hospitality & Events Pvt. Ltd. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) & Anr. and the order dated 8.3.2018, passed in W.P.(C) No.1895/2018, titled: ELF Cafe & Bar (A Unit ofln-culture Hospitality) Sub Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) & Anr., they do not wish to file a •r: ^ • - X •• fV.P.(C) No.3916/2018 Pg. 1 of[3] 2018:DHC:8898 f w counter affidavit in the matter.

4. It is to be noted that the substantive relief sought by the petitioner is as follows: "(X) Issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 23/09/2017, as issued by the respondent No.1 (Annexure P-8) and further directing the respondent No.1 to deseal the unit of the petitioner bearing details "Cafe High 5, Located at A-1 & T-6B, Floor, Hauz Khas Village, New Delhi - 110016" immediately."

5. I am informed by Mr. Katara, who appears for the petitioner, that the principal grievance of the petitionerIs that the^subject unit has been sealed in view of the order dated 23.9.2017, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Hauz Khas) (in short "iSDM"). Pertinently, counsels for the respondents do not dispute the fact that thepetitioner has in itspossession a Consent to Establish. It is also not in dispute that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, its requestfor beingissueda Consent to Operate wasrejected. 5.[1] In sum, the petitioner simply seeks deTsealihg, of ^ subject unit to gain ingress and egress for the purpose' c)fr:aB affairs and not to operate the subject unit without obtaining all statutory approval and/or permissions. ^

6. Having heard the learned Counsels; for'^tte parties and given the limited nature of the relief sought, I am inclined to direct de-sealing of the subject unit with the caveat referred to hereafter. It is ordered accordingly. The subject unit will be de-sealed by the SDM. 6.[1] As is indicated in the matter ofBondstreet Hospitality (supra), the fact that de-sealing is ordered would not be taken as if this Court has granted W.P. (C) No.3916/2018 Pg- 2 of[3] f approval to the petitioner to operate the subject unit sans the requisite statutory permissions and/or approvals. 6.[2] It is emphasised that the petitioner will not operate the subject unit as a restaurant/eating place till all the requisite permissions and approvals are obtained and measures, such as, fire safety protocol etcetera are put in place with the consent of the relevant statutory authority. An undertaking in that behalf will be filed with the Court by the petitioner within two weeks from today; copy of which will be furnished to the respondents. In case the undertaking is found lacking in any respect, the respondents will have liberty to move the Court in that behalf: L: 6.[3] The SDM(HauzKhas) will act on the orderpassed by this Court.

7. Consequently, instant writ petition and aipplication shall stand disposed ofin the aforesaid terms.

8. Dasti. • J APRIL 20, 2018