Allowed

M/S Bull Dogs (a Unit of S and a Hospitality) v. Sub Divisional Magistrare (S.D.M) and Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2018W.P.(C)/5269/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the sealing of a restaurant. The Court de-sealed the unit subject to conditions requiring the petitioner to obtain necessary environmental, fire safety, and health clearances.

What did the court decide?

Directed de-sealing of the eating house unit subject to obtaining requisite permissions (CTE, CTO, fire safety) and filing an undertaking.

M/S Bull Dogs (a Unit of S and a Hospitality) Vs Sub… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5269/2018

¶4

M/S BULL DOGS (A UNIT OF S AND A HOSPITALITY)

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

Through Mr. Prashant Kumar and Mr. Soin Khan, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRARE (S.D.M) AND ANR.

¶9

		.....	Respondents
Through	Mr. Anuj	Aggarwal,	ASC for
	GNCTD	with Ms.	Doboshree
	Mukherjee,	Adv for R-1.
	Mr. B. Mah	apatra, Adv fo	r R-2.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶12

O R D E R
% 16.05.2018
C.M. Appl. No.20436/2018

¶13

1 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶14

W.P.(C) 5269/2018 & C.M. Appl. No.20435/2018

¶15

2 With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself.

¶16

3 The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 1 i.e. SDM, Hauz Khas. By virtue of the impugned order dated 23.09.2017, the petitioner‟s eating house was sealed for violation of the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. It is the submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an application for issuance of consent to establish

¶17

has been preferred and that an undertaking has been given to furnish Environmental Compensation Security (ECS) in the sum of Rs.2 lacs. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to the documents appended at pages 43, 59 & 62 of the paper book.

¶18

4 Counsel for respondent No. 2/DPCC says that he would have no objection to de-sealing being ordered subject to usual caveats that the petitioner will not run a restaurant or an eating house till all requisite permissions and approvals are obtained by him which would include issuance of CTE and a consent to operate.

¶19

5 Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, who, appears for respondent No. 1/SDM says that the said respondent is only an implementing agency and that sealing was carried out at the behest of respondent No. 2/DPCC. 6 In these circumstances, I am inclined to direct de-sealing of the subject unit with the following caveats: (i) That the petitioner will obtain a CTE, CTO and all other requisite permissions and approvals before resuming the activity of running an eating house

¶20

(ii) The petitioner will also put in place the necessary fire safety measures and in this behalf, would approach the concerned statutory authorities for approval if it intends to operate a restaurant or eating house. (iii) The petitioner will file an undertaking in this behalf with this Court within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶21

7 Respondent No. 1/SDM will act as per the directions of this Court after the undertaking, as indicated above, has been filed with this Court by the petitioner. A copy of the undertaking will be furnished to respondent No. 1/SDM as well as respondent

¶22

No. 2/DPCC.

¶23

8 Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

9 Pending application shall stand closed.

¶25

10 Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶26

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶27

MAY 16, 2018 A

M/S Bull Dogs (a Unit of S and a Hospitality) v. Sub Divisional Magistrare (S.D.M) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bull Dogs (a Unit of S and a Hospitality) v. Sub Divisional Magistrare (S.D.M) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Six Dee Telecom Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Board of Trustees, E.P.F. Organization

Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gajraj Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

K.D. College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Shamshuddin Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Sh Bhagwan Dass and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ayush Tiwari Vs Faculty of Law & Ors.

Garuav Dahiya Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Taponidhi Shri Panchayati Anand Akhada and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ritesh v. Mathankar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sunder Lal Jain and Anr. Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

Rajiv Gaur & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Datt Mediproducts Private Limited Vs Drugs Controller General (India)

Sheetal Malhotra Vs Chief Passport Officer and Ors.