Writ petition seeking de-sealing of a Delhi property sealed since 2018 pursuant to orders in M.C. Mehta. MCD had rejected the de-sealing representation. The court noted the Supreme Court's Judicial Committee has exclusive jurisdiction over de-sealing and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach that Committee.
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.
$~80
SANTOSH KUMARI ..... Petitioner
Through: Advocate (appearance not given)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh and Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. for MCD. Mr. O.P. Gupta, Adv. (through v/c)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
O R D E R
% 14.05.2024
In view of aforesaid, the application/representation of applicant
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 00:51:17
for permanent de-sealing of subject property i.e. D-97, Lord Krishna Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Therefore I, B.P. Bhardwaj, Deputy Commissioner, Civil Lines zone having the delegated powers of the Commissioner, MCD u/s 491 of DMC Act, hereby dismiss/reject the representation of applicant for de-sealing of subject property being non maintainable before undersigned. ”
13.09.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra):
“The Judicial Committee will have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to these orders, decisions and recommendations of both the Monitoring Committees constituted by this Court vide orders dated 24.03.2006 and 07.05.2004 resulting in action by the Municipal Corporations and Regulatory Committees in respect thereof. The subject matters are as under:
i) Sealing and de-sealing of properties; ii) Regularization and/or levy of penalties or conversion charges; iii) Demolition of unauthorized construction; and iv) Directing the removal of encroachment.”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 00:51:17
Supreme Court vide the aforesaid judgement/order dated 13.09.2022, which shall consider the request of the petitioner for de-sealing of the premises in question.
MAY 14, 2024/ cl
SACHIN DATTA, J
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 00:51:17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should order de-sealing of the petitioner's sealed property or direct her to the Supreme Court-appointed Judicial Committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of IndiaReferred
M.C. Mehta vs. UOI, W.P.(C) 4677/1985
Santosh Kumari
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Sachin Datta
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
