Dev Surya Malik v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ORS.

$~124 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 18.05.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 895/2026 DEV SURYA MALIK .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vipin Sehrawat and Mr. Manoj Godara, Advs.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS ......Respondents Through:

Mr. Parminder Singh, SC, MCD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.33835/2026 (Exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.

Application stands disposed of.

CONT.CAS(C) 895/2026 3.

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated 21.04.2026, passed in W.P.(C) 4379/2026. The same reads as under: "1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent-MCD, to take action against the unauthorized gym being operated by respondent no.3 at the petitioner's residential property bearing no. Plot No. 4/2, situated in Khasra No. 11/10, Village Nawada, Colony known as Bhagwati Garden Extension, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi-110059.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-MCD on advance notice, submits that a show cause notice has been issued to the owner of the gym on 2nd April, 2026.

3. A reply has been received thereto on 13th April, 2026.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-MCD submits that reply has not been found to be satisfactory and hence, respondent-MCD is in the process of issuing a closure notice.

By:CHINU LUTHRA 14:50:44 CONT.CAS(C) 895/2026

5. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions on record, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

6. Liberty is given to the petitioner to take appropriate remedies as per law in the event the petitioner has further grievance.

7. All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the private respondents are kept open."

4.

Issue notice.

5.

Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent / Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). He submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order, a Closure Notice dated 28.04.2026 was issued in respect of the property in question. He submits that consequently, the health licence granted in respect of operation of the said gym in the concerned premises has also been cancelled / rejected. He submits that thereafter, several attempts were made to inspect the property, however, on every visit, the property was found to be closed. 6.

After some hearing, the following directions are issued: (i)The property would be inspected by Mr. Jitender Kumar Yadav, Assistant Public Health Inspector (Mobile No.: 9871534139) along with the petitioner. The said officer shall coordinate with the petitioner to agree upon on a date / time for the inspection. (ii) The MCD shall ensure that no unauthorized gym is operational from the property referred to in the aforesaid order dated 21.04.2026. For this purpose, such action, as may be warranted in accordance with law, shall be taken, and a strict vigil shall be exercised. 7.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. MAY 18, 2026/cl SACHIN DATTA, J By:CHINU LUTHRA 14:50:44 CONT.CAS(C) 895/2026