Disposed

Swati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC23 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/19610/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stallholder sought quashing of a DDA order and grant of a Veterinary License from MCD for selling fish, chicken and mutton at a DDA market stall. The court directed representations to MCD and DDA, coordinated consideration within four weeks, personal hearing, inspection, compliance checks under MCD policy and Aircraft Rules Rule 91, Rs.20,000 de-sealing fee, and exemption from fresh fees if alre

What the court decided

AI extract

Swati Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 23^rd December, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 19610/2025, CM APPL. 81964/2025 & CM APPL. 81965/2025

¶5

SWATI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. K.K.L. Gautam, Ms. Vishali Nariyala and Mr. Sumit, Advocates Mob: 9871911183 Email: [email protected] & [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta and Mr. Rachit Singh, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9811135509 Email: [email protected] Ms. Aarti Bansal, Advocate for DDA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶11

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing/setting aside the Official Order dated 13^th August, 2024, issued by the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) Commercial Estate Branch and issuance of directions for commanding/directing the respondent no. 1 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to grant Veterinary License to the petitioner.

¶13

The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶16

permit the petitioner for running/selling of fish/chicken/mutton in Stall No. 8, Dabri More, Fruit and Vegetable Market, New Delhi .

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in the business of selling Fish/Chicken and Mutton in the Shop/Stall No. 8 at Fruit, Vegetable and Fish Market (DDA Main Market) at Dabri Mor Pocket 20C, Palam Road, New Delhi, before the survey of the site took place in the year 2004, and construction of 288 platforms.

¶18

It is submitted that the petitioner is the legal owner of the thara/unit/stall no. 8 via draw dated 28^th March, 2010.

¶19

It is submitted that the petitioner has fulfilled the criteria as per the policy of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) dated 20^th December, 2023, for the issuance of the Veterinary License for running/ selling of fish, chicken, wherein the new policy for the grant of license to the meat shops, meat procession/packaging/storage plants/factories/unit and registration of the platforms/thadas allotted by the DDA/government agencies for the sale of chicken and fish in the jurisdiction of MCD, has been allowed.

¶20

It is further submitted that this Court has already dealt with similar issue and passed orders on 12^th August, 2025 in W.P.(C) 12160/2025 and order dated 09^th September, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) 3595/2025.

¶21

Thus, he prays that similar order be passed in the present petition also. 8. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for MCD. Ms. Aarti Bansal, who is on panel of DDA and is present in Court, is requested to represent the DDA in the present matter.

¶22

Learned counsel for the MCD submits that similar orders have already been passed by this Court. However, he draws the attention of this Court to

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶25

the policy issued by the Veterinary Services Department of MCD and in particular, relies upon Clause 7 of the same policy, which reads as under:

¶26

“xxx xxx xxx

¶27

7. If a meat shop/premises is sealed due to any violation of the provision of this policy, an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) shall be charged as processing fee for de-sealing for the first time. If, the same meat shop is sealed subsequently on account of violation of terms and conditions of the Policy or due to any other reason whatsoever, an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) each time shall be charged for de-sealing of the meat shop from the meat shopkeeper.

¶28

xxx xxx xxx”

¶29

By referring to the aforesaid, learned counsel for respondent MCD submits that the petitioner would be required to pay the aforesaid amount, as process fee, for de-sealing.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no objection to payment of the said amount.

¶31

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed as follows:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall make representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone, MCD and Commercial Estate Branch of DDA.

¶33

(ii) Upon the representations being made by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner for withdrawal of the order of revocation of Veterinary Trade License, as well as revocation of license by the DDA, including, de-sealing of premises, shall be considered and

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶36

disposed of by the concerned officials of the MCD and DDA, within a period of four weeks.

¶37

(iii) At the time of considering the representations of the petitioner, the concerned officials of DDA and MCD shall coordinate with each other, so that the representations of the petitioner are dealt in a comprehensive manner.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall be called for personal hearing through herself or through her authorized representative, at the time of considering her representations.

¶39

(v) The respondents shall carry out inspection of the premises of the petitioner, in order to assess the status of the premises of the petitioner, for their compliances in terms of the Policy of the MCD.

¶40

(vi) The DDA and MCD shall satisfy themselves that the petitioner adheres to the various compliances in terms of Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.

¶41

(vii) Representation of the petitioner shall be duly considered in terms of the policy of the MCD, issued vide Office Order dated 20^th December, 2023, by the Department of Veterinary Services, MCD.

¶42

(viii) Requisite order for grant of license by the DDA and MCD shall be issued in favour of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with all the requisite directions and fulfilling the various compliances in terms of the policy of the MCD, as well as Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

¶45

(ix) The requisite orders in the applications of the petitioner shall be passed within a period of four weeks, from today.

¶46

(x) The petitioner shall be exempted from paying any fresh fees towards grant of license, in case said fees already stands paid by the petitioner, on previous occasions.

¶47

(xi) The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as per the policy of the MCD, as process fee, for de-sealing of the premises in question.

¶48

Accordingly, the present application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. In view of the aforesaid directions, no other orders are required to be passed in the present petition. Thus, the present petition, along with pending applications, is accordingly disposed of.

¶49

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶50

DECEMBER 23, 2025 /SK

¶51

Signature Not Verified

¶52

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 4.12.2025 21:10:17

Swati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Swati v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Pandey and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prem Kaur Vs Reserve Bank of India & Anr.

Manish Kumar Gupta Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

M/S Chetak Bearing Co. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Group (5B)

Manoj Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Gaurav Arora Vs Government E Marketplace & Anr.

Mohit Bhatia Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajit Prasad Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Mahesh Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Anr.

Devanshu Kapoor Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Skycom and Anr. Vs Shri Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council