Allowed

Mrs. Santosh Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Delhi HC20 May 2025W.P.(C)/5011/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi HC directed the NDMC to issue a Health Trade License to a beauty salon operator, refusing to insist on submission of the hotel's sanctioned plan or its property tax receipts, noting the NDMC already possesses the hotel's own license.

What did the court decide?

Directed NDMC to issue Health Trade License without insisting on hotel's sanctioned plan or property tax receipts.

Mrs. Santosh Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5011/2020 & CM APPL. 18042/2020 MRS. SANTOSH SINGH .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Abhisehk Aggarwal, Adv. (Through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL & ANR. .....Respondents

¶7

Through: Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Mr. Ashwin Kataria and Mr. Garvit Solanki, Advs. for R-1(Through VC) Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Adv. (Through VC)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 20.05.2025

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to respondent no.1/New Delhi Municipal Council of Delhi (“NDMC”) to not take any action against the petitioner without issuing the requisite notice.

¶11

There is a further prayer for quashing of the letter dated 06^th July, 2020 issued by respondent no.1, thereby, rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of Health Trade License for operating a Beauty Salon. 3. The petitioner has been operating a Beauty Salon by the name of M/s Vogue at Vivanta by Taj Ambassador Hotel at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi110003, for the last forty years, based on the License Agreement executed by respondent no. 2, i.e., “United Hotels Limited”.

¶12

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 01/07/2025 at 22:37:05

¶13

The petitioner was informed that besides a license by the hotel, the petitioner was also required to obtain a Health Trade License from the NDMC.

¶14

Accordingly, respondent no.2 itself had applied for license on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 10^th August, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner also made various representations before the NDMC. However, no response was received from the NDMC.

¶15

th 6. Subsequently, vide the impugned letter dated 06 July, 2020, the NDMC rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of Health Trade License, on the ground that all the documents had not been supplied by the petitioner, i.e., the sanctioned plan of the hotel, as well as property tax receipts. Thus, the present writ petition came to be filed. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that the essential grievance of the petitioner is that the application of the petitioner for grant of license for operating Beauty Salon from Vivanta by Taj Ambassador Hotel, has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to submit the sanctioned plan of the hotel and the property tax receipts.

¶16

This Court notes that there is a Health Trade License issued by the NDMC in favour of the respondent no. 2/hotel itself. Thus, when the respondent no.1/NDMC has issued Health Trade License to the respondent no. 2/hotel itself, it is evident that the requisite documents pertaining to the sanctioned building plan of the hotel as well as the various property tax receipts of the property tax deposited by the hotel, would be in possession of the respondent no.1-NDMC.

¶17

Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondent no.1/NDMC, is not

¶18

¶19

justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner only on the basis of non-submission of the sanction plan.

¶20

This Court further notes that as far as the receipts of the property tax is concerned, the petitioner is only a licensee of the hotel. Thus, if there is any deficiency in payment of property tax by the hotel, the NDMC would be at liberty to take appropriate action against the hotel for non-payment of property tax and the same would be the subject matter of separate proceedings.

¶21

Thus, if Health Trade License is issued by the NDMC in favour of the petitioner, the same would, in no manner, hinder any action that the NDMC may take against the hotel for non-payment of property tax.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid, it is directed that the respondent no.1NDMC shall issue a Heath Trade License in favour of the petitioner. However, it is clarified that issuance of a Health Trade License in favour of the petitioner, would not hinder the respondent no. 1/NDMC from initiating any proceedings, which the NDMC is advised to, in order to take against the hotel for recovery of the property tax.

¶23

Accordingly, it is directed that Health Trade License shall be issued in favour of the petitioner by the NDMC, subject to fulfilling of the various formalities of the NDMC. However, at the time of issuance of the Health Trade License, the respondent no.1/NDMC shall neither insist on the deposit of the sanctioned plan of the hotel nor the property tax receipts, with regard to payment of property tax by the hotel.

¶24

It is clarified that the present directions have been issued in accordance with the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid directions, the present writ

¶25

¶26

petition, along with the pending application, is disposed of.

¶27

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶28

MAY 20, 2025/kr

¶29

Mrs. Santosh Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Santosh Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Council & 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

Jco Gas Pipe Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato Ward 91 Zone 8 Delhi

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Yadav and Anr. Vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.

Gor Sharian Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Sri Ganpati Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Cgst, Delhi West

Union of India & Ors. Vs Abhay Raj Pal

NTPC Retired Employees Welfare Association and Ors. Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Ge Steam Power Inc( Earlier Known as M/S Alstom Power Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Ge Power Gmbh ( Earlier Known as M/S Ge Power Ag and Ealier to That as Alstom Power Ag) Vs Assistent Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int Tax 1(3) (1) and Anr.

Sahakar Global Limited Jv and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sri Krishan Rana Vs Sanjeev Rana

Sanjay Katyal & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ashok Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Sunita Devi & Anr. Vs Salra Devi

Krishan Tokas Vs Ram Kishan Tokas & Anr.