* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 3rd November, 2011
+ LPA 652/2011
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ...Appellant
Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Advocate and
Ms.Sidhi Arora, Advocate.
versus
AFSAR & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanobar Ali Qureshi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CM No.14978/2011 (Delay)
For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing
the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA No.652/2011
1. W.P.(C) No.2300/2011 filed by the respondents has
been allowed vide order dated 6.4.2011 and MCD has been
LPA 652/2011 Page 1 of 4
directed to de-seal the ground floor of property No.973/31,
Jafrabad, Delhi, which was sealed on account of the alleged
reason that cow meat was being sold from the premises in
question and for which an FIR for having committed offences
punishable under Sections 278/295A/429/34 IPC read with
Sections 4/8/12/13 of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation
Act 1994 was registered against the respondents. Review
sought of the order dated 6.4.2011 has been dismissed vide
impugned order dated 6.7.2011.
2. The learned Single Judge has held that no power is
vested in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi under the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act 1957 to seal any property on account
of an unauthorized user thereof, a finding which we have no
hesitation in setting aside for the reason the issue is no longer
res integra. Interpreting Section 345A which empowers the
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi to seal
properties in Delhi on account of violation of the building bye-
laws framed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, in the
decision reported as 2006 (3) SCC 399 M.C.Mehta Vs. UOI &
Ors. it was held that change of user of a building would entitle
the Commissioner to seal a property on account of misuse and
suffice would it be to state that the subject property is a
residential property and cannot be used for any commercial
purpose and thus irrespective of the fact whether or not cow
meat was being sold from the property, there being no
permission from the Commissioner of the Corporation to
LPA 652/2011 Page 2 of 4
change the user of the subject property, the Commissioner
MCD was fully justified in sealing the property and thus we
need not deal with the submission urged by learned counsel for
the respondents that buffalo meat and not cow meat was being
sold from the subject property. Further, we find that under
Section 415 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act if a flesh
product or flesh is to be sold from a premises, a specific license
has to be obtained from the Commissioner MCD and for
contravention, the Commissioner is empowered to adopt such
means as he may considered necessary to stop illegal trade by
way of sale of flesh from a premises and this power would
include the power to seal the premises.
3. The view taken by the learned Single Judge while
disposing of the review application that the property cannot be
indefinitely sealed is correct in view of the fact that the
respondents have expressed a willingness to file undertakings
before the Commissioner MCD that they would not misuse the
premises in question and would strictly use the same for a
residential purpose.
4. We note that the Corporation has now, vide office
order dated 2.9.2011 revised a policy pertaining to grant of
license to meat shops which includes the power to prevent
violation of the statute and the policy.
5. We need not deal with the said policy inasmuch as
the respondents are willing to undertake as per para 3 above
and thus we dispose of the appeal observing that the view
LPA 652/2011 Page 3 of 4
taken by the learned Single Judge with respect to the power to
seal vested in the Commissioner MCD is incorrect. But, we
maintain the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge
with a modification that the same would be obeyed upon the
respondents and if there are any other co-owners of the subject
property, undertakings be filed recording that they would not
use the subject premises for any commercial use save and
except after obtaining a license from the Commissioner MCD
and till then would use the subject premises for residential use
and no other. Upon the undertakings being filed, within a week
thereof the premises would be de-sealed. It is made clear that
if respondents violate the undertaking, the Commissioner MCD
would be fully justified in re-sealing the premises in question.
6. No costs.
CM No.14976/2011 (Stay)
Since the appeal stands disposed of, the instant
application seeking interim relief against the impugned order
stands disposed of as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(S.P. GARG)
JUDGE
November 3, 2011/mm
LPA 652/2011 Page 4 of 4
