The Delhi High Court recently extended interim protection to the renowned South Delhi restaurant, Mahabelly Canteen, against a sealing directive issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The order, delivered by Justice Amit Bansal, restrains the MCD from initiating any coercive sealing measures on the eatery’s Saidulajab premises.
The judicial intervention came in response to a petition from M/s Fenn & Jacob Associates LLP, the entity operating Mahabelly. The petition challenged a 48-hour sealing notice given on September 1st by the MCD’s Deputy Commissioner (South Zone), citing Section 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The court has allotted Mahabelly two weeks to file a comprehensive representation against the notice. During this time, the MCD is required to evaluate the reply and make a reasoned decision in line with legal principles.
The court emphasized that no precipitative steps should be taken against Mahabelly until the matter is resolved. Representing Mahabelly, the legal counsel argued that the MCD had prematurely concluded that the premises were being misused as per the Master Plan for Delhi-2021. The counsel asserted that this decision was made without offering a hearing, inspection report, or respecting natural justice principles.
The legal representatives also contended that the 48-hour ultimatum, along with the threat of immediate sealing, undermines statutory protections, making them ineffective. They pointed out an inconsistency in MCD’s actions, highlighting that the MCD’s own Public Health Department had issued a valid health trade license on July 14, allowing the operation of an “Eating Establishment (20 to 50 seats)” at the same location until December 31. Thus, the Building Department’s assertion of misuse was contradictory to the granted permissions.
Further, the plea stressed that imposing a summary sealing would jeopardize the jobs of nearly 40 employees and ignore the protections under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011. It would also contravene the mixed-use guidelines applicable to urban villages such as Saidulajab.
More Read
After considering the arguments, the court noted that the petitioner should be given a chance to present its case before any coercive steps are taken. Advocate Amit George, alongside advocates Abhinav Jagannathan, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Nishant Shrivastava, and Tanushree Gupta, represented Mahabelly, while Advocate Shivam Sachdeva appeared for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
