The Delhi High Court on Monday granted interim protection to popular South Delhi eatery Mahabelly Canteen against sealing action of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
Justice Amit Bansal directed MCD not to take any precipitative or coercive sealing action against Mahabelly's premises in Saidulajab.
The Court passed the order on a petition filed by the restaurant’s operating entity, M/s Fenn & Jacob Associates LLP, challenging a 48-hour sealing notice issued on September 1 by the Deputy Commissioner (South Zone) of the MCD under Section 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
The Court granted Mahabelly two weeks to submit a detailed representation in response to the notice.
The Court directed the civic body to consider the reply and arrive at a reasoned decision in accordance with law,
In the interim, no precipitative steps shall be taken against the establishment, the Court directed.
Earlier, the counsel for Mahabelly argued that MCD had arbitrarily formed a final view regarding the alleged “misuse” of premises under the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 without affording an opportunity of hearing, providing an inspection report, or adhering to the principles of natural justice.
It was contended that a 48-hour ultimatum, accompanied by a threat of summary sealing without further notice, rendered statutory safeguards completely illusory.
The counsel highlighted that the MCD was guilty of “speaking in two voices.”
It was submitted that the corporation’s own Public Health Department had granted the establishment a valid health trade licence on July 14, expressly permitting it to operate an “Eating Establishment (20 to 50 seats)” at the very same premises till December 31.
Therefore, the Building Department could not simultaneously brand the exact same permitted activity as actionable misuse warranting coercive closure.
The plea further pointed out that any summary sealing would unlawfully imperil the livelihood of nearly 40 employees and disregard the protective provisions available under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011, as well as the mixed-use framework governing urban villages like Saidulajab.
After hearing the submissions, the Court recorded that an opportunity must be afforded to the petitioner to place its case on record before any coercive measures are initiated.
Advocate Amit George, along with advocates Abhinav Jagannathan, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Nishant Shrivastava and Tanushree Gupta appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate Shivam Sachdeva represented the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.