M/S COMPUTER KIDS PVT. LTD. v. SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of. W.P.rCI No.5786/2016 & CM No.239I2/2016 (for stay)

3. The matter has been informed to have been specially marked by Hon'ble the ChiefJusticeto be placedbeforethe undersigned.

4. The senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) appear.

5. The petition impugns "order" dated July, 2016 ofthe respondent SDMC and seeksto restrainthe respondent SDMC from sealingthe premises bearingNo.E-75, NDSE-I, New Delhi. W.P.(C) No.5786/2016 2016:DHC:8966 SC-

6. It is the contention ofthe senior counsel for the petitioner that the use by the petitioner of the subject premises for Computer Coaching is not a misuse. Attention in this regard is invited to Clauses 15.7.[1] and 15.7.[2] of the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 and it is contended that the subject premises are situated on a nine meters wide road and are permitted to be used for coaching centres / tuition centres other than those imparting structured courses leading directly to the award of a degree or diploma or conducting classes such as a regular school. It is further contended that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner and in whichthe petitioner could have satisfied the respondent SDMC in this regard; instead, the petitioner has been directed to stop the "misuse" within 48 hours and file a compliance affidavit.

7. The counsel for the respondent SDMC appearing on advance notice states that the document dated July, 2016, which the petitioner is impugning as an "order", is in fact a notice under Section 345-Aof the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It is contended that if the petitioner has anything to say with respect thereto, the remedy of the petitioner was to file an application in that regard before the respondent SDMC and if the respondent SDMC is satisfiedtherewith, the petitioner would not be required to file the compliance; the petitioner has instead rushed to this Court.

8. In view of aforesaid, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: (A) The writ petition be treated as a representation of the petitioner to the notice dated 1®^ July, 2016 supra; W.P.(C) No.5786/2016 Page 2 of[3] (B) The petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone, SDMC for a personal hearing, if any required by the petitioner, on 11^ July, 2016 at 1500 hours;

(C) The respondent SDMC to, on or before 18^ July, 2016, pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner and to serve a copy thereof on the petitioner; the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Central Zone, SDMC for collecting a copy of theorder at 1600 hours oil 18^ July, 2016;

(D) If the order of the respondent SDMC is of sealing of the premises, the said sealing be not effected till 25^^ July, 2016 to enable the petitioner to take its appropriate remedy available in accordance with law; however, this shall be subject to the petitioner not making any additions or alterations in the premises and not inducting any other person into the premises and also not doing anything prejudicial to the notice qua the premises. No costs. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J. JULY 04,2016 ' bs..