Mohd Mansoor Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking prayer for quashing the notices/order dated 03^rd November, 2025 and 06^th November, 2025, passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), whereby, the MCD has intimated that the shop of the petitioner will be sealed and the proceedings to revoke the trading license of the petitioner has commenced, which is valid upto 26^th March, 2026.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in a scrap-warehousing business at premises No. A-9 (Ground Floor), Old Double Storey, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi110024, for the last twenty years.

¶15

It is submitted that the petitioner has a valid license issued from the

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶17

Page 1 of 7

¶18

MCD and draws the attention of this Court to the license document issued in favour of the petitioner by Central Licensing and Enforcement Cell, MCD, which is reproduced as under:

¶19

By referring to the aforesaid license, it is the case of the petitioner that the license of the petitioner is valid till 31^st March, 2026.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that notice dated 06^th November, 2025 was received by the petitioner, wherein, directions

¶21

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

have been issued by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Zone, MCD, for revocation of the Municipal Trade License of the petitioner. The said letter dated 06^th November, 2025, is reproduced as under:

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the notice dated 03^rd November, 2025, issued under Section 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 by the Building Department, Central Zone, MCD, which is reproduced as under:

¶27

By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner has removed all the incriminating goods. He draws the attention of this Court to the photographs attached with the present petition, two of which, are

¶28

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶29

Page 4 of 7

¶30

reproduced as under:

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶32

Page 5 of 7

¶33

He submits that without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in this regard, the aforesaid action is sought to be taken against the petitioner.

¶34

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-MCD submits that a complaint case is pending against the petitioner before the Public Grievances Commission (“PGC”). She submits that the violation and misuse being carried out by the petitioner has been noticed by the department and that the petitioner was found to be misusing the premises for trading of plastic goods, iron junk and other waste materials, which is in complete violation of the permissible use of the said property, and also against the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 (“MPD 2021”).

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the MCD relies upon Clause 15.6.2 of MPD 2021, to submit that junk shop (except paper and glass waste), are not allowed under the mixed use. 12. She, thus, submits that since the petitioner was found to be misusing the premises in question, action has rightly been initiated by the MCD. 13. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to submit an undertaking before the MCD that the petitioner shall not use the premises except for the permissible use under the MPD 2021.

¶37

Responding to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-MCD submits that since misuse was found in the premises in question, the petitioner would be liable to pay misuse charges for the same. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶40

Page 6 of 7

¶41

prejudice to its rights and contentions, the petitioner is ready to pay the misuse charges.

¶42

This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the MCD that on previous occasions also, the monitoring committee had issued directions against the petitioner herein since the premises in question was found to be misused.

¶43

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall forthwith file an undertaking before the concerned department of the MCD, that the petitioner shall use the premises strictly in accordance with the permissible use in terms of Clause 15.6.2 of MPD 2021 and as per the terms of the License issued to the petitioner.

¶44

Further, the misuse charges payable by the petitioner shall be duly indicated to the petitioner, which shall be paid by the petitioner promptly. 19. The petitioner is held bound to strictly comply with any directions that may be issued by the MCD, and shall carry out the business in the premises strictly, in accordance with law and in compliance with the permissible use.

¶45

It is clarified that in case the petitioner is found to be not complying with his undertaking and misusing the premises, the MCD shall be at liberty to take action, in accordance with law.

¶46

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶47

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶48

NOVEMBER 14, 2025 ak

¶49

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.11.2025 20:44:50

¶50

Page 7 of 7

Mohd Mansoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Mansoor v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S S Bhankers Assocation and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Wg Cdr Srinivasan Ramanathan (Retd)

Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramu Vs Staff Selection Commission and Anr.

P.C.Sharma Vs UOI & Ors.

Jawahar Lal Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

M/S Anant Sharma Vs Union of India & Anr.

Force NO.0583941 Satbir Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sangeeta Vs Hitesh Kumar

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs Inder Chawla & Anr.

Bses Yamuna Power Limited Vs Manish Kumar Garg & Anr.

Sanjeev Garg Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Singh and Sons Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh Raj Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi