Allowed

M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Delhi HC4 May 2018W.P.(C)/4706/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner complained that the Financial Commissioner stayed his order but refused to de-seal premises. The Court directed immediate de-sealing, continued the interim order, and fixed the appeal for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to immediately de-seal the subject premises; the interim order shall continue until the disposal of the appeal; the appeal is fixed for hearing on 05.07.2018.

M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA

¶2

The Financial Commissioner, however, on 15.03.2018 indicated that he was not inclined to pass any ex-parte direction, at the request of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent the notice was made returnable on 20.03.2018.

¶3

5.1 On 20.03.2018, the learned Financial Commissioner observed that he was not inclined to issue any direction for de-sealing the subject premises i.e. the bar. However, the learned Financial Commissioner went on to observe that the interim order passed by him would continue to operate till the next date of hearing. The matter was posted for further proceedings on 05.04.2018.

¶4

5.2 On 05.04.2018, at request of the petitioner the matter was fixed for final arguments on 05.07.2018. Furthermore, the learned Financial Commissioner also granted time to the petitioner to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent herein. In addition thereto, a direction was issued that thb interim,order passed by him would continue to operate till the next date iie. 05.07.2018.

¶5

The petitioner has approached this. Court, being distraught with the approach adopted by the learned Financial Commissioner. It is the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though operation of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Excise) remains stayed, the respondent has taken no steps to de-seal the subject premises. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the respondent has become even more obdurate in view of the disinclination on the part of the learned Financial Commissioner to enforce his own order.

¶6

Issue notice. Mr. Ramesh Singh accepts notice on behalf of the

Pg. 2 of3

respondent.

Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned standing counsel says that the respondents do not wish to file a counter affidavit in the matter and that the matter can be disposed of at this stage itself.

¶11

Having perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties, I am unable to agree with the approach adopted by the learned Financial Commissioner. The reason being that even while he continues to extend the stay granted on the operation of the order of Commissioner (Excise) he refused to order de-sealing of the subject premises. The logical sequitur of staying the order of Commissioner (Excise) would be to proceed with de-sealing. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶12

(i) The respondent will immediately de-seal the subject premises. (ii) The interim order dated 09.03.2018,: passed by the learned * Financial Commissioner will continue to operate till the disposal of the appeal.

¶13

(iii) The learned Financial Commissioner will endeavour to take up the appeal for hearing and disposal on 05.07.2018.

¶14

Needless to say that the petitioner will not apply for an adjournment on 05.07.2018,when, the appeal is fixed for hearing. 11. Dasti. 1

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

MAY 04, 2018 A

W.P.(C) 4706/2018

Pg.3of3

M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S 2 Bandits Restaurant v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kapoor Vs University of Delhi & Anr.

Jai Prakash Vs D.T.C.& Anr.

K.K.Dhawan Vs Export Credit Gurantee Corp. of India Ltd. & Ors.

Mangt. of D.T.C. Vs Jai Prakash

Sundar Lal Vs Central Bank of India

D.T.C. Vs Sh.Bijender Singh

Bijender Singh Vs D.T.C.

Fateh Singh Sanwariya (Deceased) through His Legal Representatives Vs Central Bank of India

Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Manch (Masum) Vs Union of India

Cesc Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunflag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Yogesh Bhatia Vs Union of India

Arun Kapoor Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sunil Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.