The petitioner challenged a property sealing order, praying for de-sealing. The Respondent counsel advised approaching the Supreme Court as the order was under SC directions. The Petitioner withdrew the petition accordingly, and it was dismissed.
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~34
M/S RHINE POWER PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
versus
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Puja Kalra, Adv. for R1.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
CM. No. 30242/2019 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 7263/2019 and CM No. 30241/2019 (for Stay)
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
“In the light of the above facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed to issue the directions to the Respondent to immediately de-seal the premises of the petitioner, i.e., Plot No. 277, Khasra No. 52/4, Swarn Park, Udyog Nagar, Mundak, Rohtak Road, New Delhi – 110041 in the interest of justice.
OR ALTERNATIVELY
Direct the Respondent to pass the speaking order on the representation filed by the Petitioner, with the Respondent for de-sealing the premises, i.e., Plot No. 277. Khasra No. 52/4, Swarn Park, Udyog Nagar, Mundka, Rohtak Road, New Delhi
– 110041 in the interest of justice.
Any other or further order (s) which this Hon’ble Court deem fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents, in the interest of justice.”
Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that the petitioner needs to approach the Supreme Court as the sealing order has been issued pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 4677/85. In this regard, she has drawn my attention to Page 50 of the paper book. According to her, it is pursuant to this sealing order, sealing of the property in question continues.
In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition to approach the Supreme Court.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 08, 2019 /jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain the petition after learned counsel suggested the petitioner approach the Supreme Court.
Whether the petition should be disposed of as the petitioner sought to withdraw it to approach the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.C. Mehta v. Union of IndiaReferred¶21
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 4677/85.
M/S RHINE POWER PVT. LTD.
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
V KAMESWAR RAO
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
