High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/1629/2015

M/S Prominent Hotels Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council

2016-07-15Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul2 pages

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1629/2015 & CM Nos.2904/2015, 3882/2015, 9024/2015, 23845-46/2015 M/S PROMINENT HOTELS LTD.

..... Petitioner Through:

None versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Vipul Ganda, Mr. Tarun Mehta & Mr. Arun Bagai, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 15.07.2016 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays as follows:

"i) Issue writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned action of the respondent in disconnecting the electricity and water supply, the notice dated 13.02.2015 cancelling all the trade and health licences of the Respondent, the sealing order dated 16.02.2015 issued by the Deputy Director (Estate) of the Respondent and the entire various acts, actions and deeds of the Respondent to seal the premises of the Petitioner at 37, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ order or direction of the similar nature directing the Respondent to restore all the essential services, supplies, electricity and water connection, the trade and health licences to the petitioner and to de-seal the premises with immediate effect."

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC') invites my attention to the order dated 20th May, 2016 passed by this Court, whereby they have been directed to reseal the property, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. Counsel appearing on behalf of the NDMC informs me, at the bar, that the subject property has since been resealed. Learned counsel would urge that, in view of this factual situation, the petition itself has been rendered infructuous since the prayer seeking reconnection of electricity and water supply would not survive. Be that as it may, since none appears on behalf of the petitioner and there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of hearing as well, i.e., 20th May, 2016, the petition is dismissed in default. All pending applications are disposed of.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 15, 2016 tp