Purely Disputed Questions Of Fact Can’t Be Dealt With In Writ Petition: Delhi High Court In Coaching Centre Sealing Case

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to permanently de-seal the middle portion, 2nd floor, F-16, Preet Vihar, Delhi -110092, let out to M/S. Alchemist.

Considering that the grievance of the petitioner was that the conversion charges, parking charges and the penalty had wrongly been calculated/imposed by the MCD, the Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal held, “In my considered view, these are purely disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in a writ petition.”

Advocate Varun Deswal represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Anand Prakash represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners submitted that they are the lawful owners of the subject properties and they had deposited the parking charges, one-time registration as well as one-time conversion charges in relation to the aforesaid premises in 2018-19. On May 16, 2025, the respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a show cause notice to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners did not have a Fire NOC in respect of the subject properties. A sealing order was passed on the ground that the petitioners had failed to pay the misuse/penalty charges. After the writ petitions of the Petitioners were disposed of, they filed undertakings with the respondent-MCD stating that the premises would be used strictly in accordance with the applicable Municipal Corporation of Delhi bye-laws.

The respondent-MCD issued demand letters conveying the conversion charges/penalty for misuse to be paid by the petitioners. As the respondent-MCD did not de-seal the property of the petitioners, the petitioners filed contempt petitions. It was the case of the MCD before the contempt Court that MCD had raised certain charges, which the petitioners had failed to pay. The contempt petitions were disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in respect of the aforesaid charges. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to a speaking order passed on behalf of the respondent-MCD wherein it was noted that the petitioners were running coaching centres from the subject property without the requisite Fire NOC. On this aspect, the Bench reiterated that coaching and tuition centres are required to comply with the fire safety norms.

During the course of the hearing, the Court was informed that the petitioners had vacated the subject properties and were no longer running coaching centres in the subject properties. “Accordingly, in terms of the undertaking filed by the petitioners, the petitioners would be required to take Fire NOC for operating any coaching centers from the said premises”, it ordered.

Coming to the issue of levy of conversion charges/penalty for misuse, the Bench noted that the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, passed a speaking order after hearing the parties at length. The respondent-MCD had also given credit to the petitioners for the parking/conversion charges paid by the petitioners. Thus, refusing to deal with purely disputed questions of fact, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

The Bench concluded the matter by ordering, “Needless to state, upon the petitioners paying the requisite charges, as directed by this Court on 11th July, 2025 and communicated to the petitioners vide communication dated 3rd February, 2026, the MCD shall forthwith de-seal the subject properties.”

Cause Title: Heena Aleem v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2712)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Varun Deswal, Danish Khan

Respondent: Standing Counsel Anand Prakash, Advocate Varsha Arya

Click here to read/download Order