Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: A.No. 797/25
Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. MCD
16.12.2025
Present : 	Sh. Kunwar Anshuman Yadav, Ld counsel for the
appellant.
Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, Ld counsel for the respondent
along with Sh. Pratham, JSA/RC, from General Branch.
Status report along with office record produced by the
respondent. Copy of the status report supplied.
The record has been produced. It be deposited with
Registry.
Arguments heard on the interim application.
It was argued for the appellant that no show cause notice
was served upon the appellant who is the owner of the
property. Only vacation notice was served by way of
affixation on subject property. The respondent has
violated the principles of natural justice and the property
should be desealed as an interim relief.
Ld counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued
that this court does not has jurisdiction to entertain this
appeal and the appellant should approach the Judicial
Committee for desealing the property.
On merits, it was stated that property was misused for
running industry for manufacturing card board boxes and
was sealed as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India passed in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. UOI
and therefore appeal should be dismissed.
-- 1 of 3 --
As far as the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is concerned, the
sealing order dated 09.04.2025 in para 1 talks about the
case of M.C. Mehta Vs UOI but the sealing was not
carried out on the directions of Monitoring Committee
appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The
jurisdiction of Judicial Committee appointed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India is for the matters where the
action has been taken in pursuance to the inspection
carried out by Monitoring Committee or where the
Monitoring Committee has passed an order to seal the
property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed
that any challenged to the actions done in pursuance to
order of Monitoring Committee shall be challenged only
before the Judicial Committee. In the present case the
Monitoring Committee neither carried any inspection nor
passed any order to seal the property. The sealing order
was passed under the powers of Commission, MCD
under Section 345-A of DMC Act which is appealable
before the Tribunal and therefore the present appeal is
maintainable.
Coming to merits of the case, the notice dated
18.03.2025 was served upon one Ranjeet and records
that premises is being used for purpose other than
residential by running trade/factory/industrial activities.
The nature of such misuse was not mentioned and it was
a general show cause notice mentioning all the three
activities in alternate as trade/factor/industrial activities.
-- 2 of 3 --
The inspection carried out on 27.02.2025 and 28.02.2025
show the premises are used for manufacturing card
board boxes. The sealing order however states that the
premises is being used for clothes washing unit. The
inspection report and sealing order are all together
different in respect of the alleged misuse. Further the
appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav or the alleged
occupant Mr. Sanjay M/s Gosain packers were not serve
with the show cause notice dated 18.03.2025. The show
cause notice was received by one Ranjeet Jha but his
relation with the appellant or with Mr. Sanjay is not
mentioned and it appears that show cause notice was not
served either on the appellant or Mr. Sanjay.
In these facts, the sealing action price-facie appears to be
not in accordance with law. The interim application is
allowed. Let the property be desealed within three days.
Put up for arguments on appeal on 19.05.2026.
(AMIT KUMAR)
District Judge-cum-P.O.
Appellate Tribunal : MCD Delhi
-- 3 of 3 --