Heena Aleem vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
30-03-2026
<div> $~53 to 56<br /> * <b>IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI</b><br /> <i>th</i><br /> % <i>Date of Decision: 30</i> <i> </i> <i>March, 2026</i><br /> + W.P.(C) 17877/2025 &amp; CM APPL. 73901/2025<br /> HEENA ALEEM .....Petitioner<br /> Through: Mr. Varun Deswal and Mr. Danish<br /> Khan, Advocates.<br /> versus<br /> MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ORS.<br /> .....Respondents<br /> Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, SC for MCD<br /> with Ms. Varsha Arya, Advocate.<br /> <b>54</b><br /> + W.P.(C) 17890/2025 &amp; CM APPL. 74068/2025<br /> SHAGUFTA FEROZ &amp; ANR. .....Petitioners<br /> Through: Mr. Varun Deswal and Mr. Danish<br /> Khan, Advocates.<br /> versus<br /> MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ORS.<br /> .....Respondents<br /> Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, SC for MCD<br /> with Ms. Varsha Arya, Advocate.<br /> <b>55</b><br /> + W.P.(C) 17907/2025 &amp; CM APPL. 74101/2025<br /> SHAGUFTA FEROZ &amp; ANR. .....Petitioners<br /> Through: Mr. Varun Deswal and Mr. Danish<br /> Khan, Advocates.<br /> versus<br /> MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ORS.<br /> .....Respondents<br /> Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, SC for MCD<br /> with Ms. Varsha Arya, Advocate.<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 1 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> <b>56</b><br /> + W.P.(C) 17928/2025 &amp; CM APPL. 74135/2025<br /> SHAGUFTA FEROZ &amp; ANR. .....Petitioners<br /> Through: Mr. Varun Deswal and Mr. Danish<br /> Khan, Advocates.<br /> versus<br /> MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ORS.<br /> .....Respondents<br /> Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, SC for MCD<br /> with Ms. Varsha Arya, Advocate.<br /> <b>CORAM:</b><br /> <b>HON&#x27;BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL</b><br /> <b>AMIT BANSAL, J. (ORAL)</b><br /> 1. Arguments have been heard in the present petitions on the previous<br /> rd<br /> date of hearing i.e. 23 March, 2026. There were clarifications to be sought<br /> th<br /> from the parties and hence, the petitions are listed today i.e. 30 March,<br /> 2026. Counsel for the parties have been heard with respect to the<br /> clarifications.<br /> 2. Since all the present writ petitions raise a common issue and are<br /> pertaining to the same premises, all the said petitions are being decided by<br /> way of this common judgment.<br /> 3. The facts in W.P.(C) 17877/2025 have been considered for the<br /> purposes of this judgment.<br /> 4. All the writ petitions seek similar reliefs. For the sake of convenience,<br /> the prayers sought in W.P.(C) 17877/2025 are set out below:<br /> <i>“A. issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ thereby</i><br /> <i>directing the respondents to permanently de-seal the middle portion, 2nd</i><br /> <i>floor, f-16, preet vihar, delhi -110092 (let out to m/s. alchemist enabling</i><br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 2 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> <i>through (cat, mba coaching);</i><br /> <i>B. issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ thereby setting</i><br /> <i>aside or directing the respondents to withdraw/revoke show cause notice</i><br /> <i>dated 16.5.2025, sealing order dated 29.5.2025, demand letter dated</i><br /> <i>22.7.25,</i> <i>breakdown</i> <i>of</i> <i>conversion/parking/interest</i> <i>charges</i> <i>dated</i><br /> <i>24.7.25;</i><br /> <i>C. issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ thereby</i><br /> <i>directing the respondents to permanently convert/regularize the said</i><br /> <i>portion under the head, &#x27;other property&#x27; for mixed use in terms of clause</i><br /> <i>15.7. of mpd 2021;</i><br /> <i>D. issue a writ of mandamus of any other appropriate writ thereby</i><br /> <i>directing the respondents to carry out audit and settlement of accounts</i><br /> <i>qua the registration, yearly conversion, one time conversion and parking</i><br /> <i>charges etc deposited in respect of the above said property and refund</i><br /> <i>the excess funds, if any, deposited in respect of registration, yearly</i><br /> <i>conversion, one time conversion and parking charges qua the above said</i><br /> <i>property.”</i><br /> 5. Mr. Varun Deswal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners<br /> submits that the petitioners are lawful owners of the properties located at the<br /> second floor in Preet Vihar (hereinafter the ‘subject properties’). The<br /> petitioners had deposited the parking charges, one-time registration charges<br /> and one-time conversion charges in relation to the aforesaid premises in<br /> 2018-19.<br /> th<br /> 6. On 16 May 2025, the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi<br /> (hereinafter ‘MCD’) issued a show cause notice to the petitioners alleging<br /> that the petitioners did not have a Fire NOC in respect of the subject<br /> properties.<br /> th<br /> 7. A sealing order was passed on 29 May 2025, on the ground that the<br /> petitioners have failed to pay the misuse/penalty charges.<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 3 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> 8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this<br /> Court bearing no. <i> W.P.(C) 9578/2025 and connected matters</i> , which were<br /> th<br /> disposed of on 11 July, 2025. The relevant observations in the said order<br /> are set out below:<br /> <i>“14. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed</i><br /> <i>that the petitioners shall use the subject property as per the use, which is</i><br /> <i>permissible under the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 and in accordance</i><br /> <i>with law. In case, any permission or license is required for carrying out</i><br /> <i>any activity from the premises in question, the same shall be obtained by</i><br /> <i>the petitioners from the concerned authorities.</i><br /> <i>15. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to submit an undertaking</i><br /> <i>with the MCD that they shall use the subject property only in accordance</i><br /> <i>with law, and carry out permitted activities only.</i><br /> <i>16. Let the said undertaking be filed by the petitioners with the MCD,</i><br /> <i>within a period of two working days from today.</i><br /> <i>17. Upon the petitioners submitting such an undertaking, and complying</i><br /> <i>with other directions of the MCD in that regard, including, payment of</i><br /> <i>any requisite charges, the MCD is directed to de-seal the subject</i><br /> <i>property of the petitioner within two days of the petitioner carrying out</i><br /> <i>the necessary compliances.</i><br /> <i>18. Further, the petitioners are held to be bound by their undertaking</i><br /> <i>before this Court that they shall use the subject property only as per the</i><br /> <i>permissible activities, in accordance with law and after taking requisite</i><br /> <i>permissions/licences</i> <i>from</i> <i>the</i> <i>concerned</i> <i>authorities,</i> <i>wherever</i><br /> <i>required.”</i><br /> 9. After the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of, the petitioners<br /> th<br /> filed undertakings with the respondent-MCD on 12 July 2025 stating that<br /> premises shall be used strictly in accordance with the applicable Municipal<br /> Corporation of Delhi bye-laws.<br /> nd<br /> 10. The respondent-MCD issued demand letters dated 22 July 2025 and<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 4 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> th<br /> 24 July 2025 conveying the conversion charges/penalty for misuse to be<br /> paid by the petitioners.<br /> 11. Since the respondent-MCD did not de-seal the property of the<br /> petitioners, the petitioners filed contempt petitions before this Court.<br /> 12. The stand of the respondent-MCD before the contempt Court was that<br /> MCD has raised certain charges, which the petitioners have failed to pay.<br /> nd<br /> The contempt petitions were disposed of on 22 September 2025 by giving<br /> liberty to the petitioners to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in respect<br /> of the aforesaid charges.<br /> 13. Accordingly, the present writ petitions have been filed.<br /> th<br /> 14. On the first date of hearing on 26 November 2025, this Court<br /> directed that the Deputy Commissioner of MCD shall grant a hearing to the<br /> petitioners in relation to the amounts payable towards conversion charges,<br /> registration charges and parking charges and pass a speaking order.<br /> th<br /> 15. Speaking order was passed on behalf of the respondent-MCD on 29<br /> January 2026, wherein it was noted that the petitioners were running<br /> coaching centers from the subject property without requisite Fire NOC. For<br /> th<br /> ease of reference, the relevant extracts of speaking order dated 29 January<br /> 2026 is set out below:<br /> <i>“6. In view of aforementioned factual matrix, it is hereby ordered</i><br /> <i>that:</i><br /> <i>i. The activity of “Educational Consultancy” is considered as</i><br /> <i>“Other Activities” under clause ‘J’ of 15.7.1 of MPD-2021.</i><br /> <i>ii. The Building Department, Shahdara (South) Zone is</i><br /> <i>directed to convey the requisite charges payable by the</i><br /> <i>petitioner.</i><br /> <i>iii. The petitioner is directed to pay the requisite charges to the</i><br /> <i>MCD within the period stipulated in the demand letter which</i><br /> <i>will be issued in compliance of direction at 6 (ii) above.”</i><br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 5 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> 16. Pursuant to this order, MCD calculated conversion charges/penalty<br /> for misuse of various portions of the subject properties, which were<br /> rd<br /> conveyed to the petitioners <i> vide</i> communication dated 3 February 2026.<br /> The petitioners were given adjustments towards the amounts already paid<br /> towards parking charges and conversion charges.<br /> 17. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the show cause notice issued<br /> th<br /> by the MCD on 16 May 2025 only dealt with the aspect of petitioners not<br /> having the requisite NOC from the Fire Department and running coaching<br /> centers. There was no averment in the said show cause notice with regard to<br /> conversion charges not having been paid by the petitioners.<br /> 18. He further submits that one time conversion charges were paid as far<br /> back as 2019 and no objection was raised by MCD in this regard. So, MCD<br /> could not have raised fresh demand for conversion charges, particularly<br /> without issuing any show cause notice in that regard.<br /> 19. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that whereas show cause<br /> notice was issued on the ground of lack of Fire NOC, the impugned sealing<br /> order proceeds on the basis that the petitioners have changed the user of<br /> premises from residential to commercial and have failed to pay<br /> misuse/penalty in terms of MPD 2021. The sealing order fails to take into<br /> account that one time conversion charges had been paid by the petitioners.<br /> 20. Mr. Anand Prakash, Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the<br /> MCD submits that the petitioners did not have any sanctioned building<br /> plan(s) or completion certificate(s) in respect of the subject properties. He<br /> th<br /> places reliance on the order of the Division Bench passed on 14 December,<br /> 2023 in W.P.(C) 12182/2016 titled as <b><i> Sanjay Singhal</i></b> <b> v.</b> <b><i> State Govt. of NCT</i></b><br /> <b><i>of Delhi</i></b> in terms of which Fire NOC is mandatory for running a coaching<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 6 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> institute, whether the same is run from the basement or any other part of the<br /> property. He further submits that speaking order has been passed in terms of<br /> th<br /> the order passed by this Court on 26 November 2025 after giving hearing<br /> to the petitioners.<br /> 21. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent/MCD that the<br /> petitioners had paid one time conversion charges on a self-assessment basis.<br /> After inspection it was found that the area was in excess and therefore, the<br /> petitioners have been asked to pay conversion charges after adjusting the<br /> amounts that had already been paid.<br /> 22. I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the material placed<br /> on record.<br /> 23. In so far as the requirement of Fire NOC is concerned, it is no longer<br /> <i>res integra</i> that coaching and tuition centers are required to comply with the<br /> th<br /> fire safety norms. In light of the order dated 14 December 2023 of the<br /> Division Bench in <b><i> Sanjay Singhal</i></b> (supra), the petitioners would be required<br /> to take a Fire NOC irrespective of the fact that the coaching centers are<br /> being run in the basement or any other floor. The relevant paragraph of<br /> <b><i>Sanjay Singhal</i></b> (supra) is set out below:<br /> <i>“23. Insofar as Clause 15.7.3(vii) of the MPD, 2021 is concerned, we</i><br /> <i>are inclined to accept the interpretation commended for our</i><br /> <i>consideration by the learned amicus.</i> <b><i> As we read that provision, we</i></b><br /> <b><i>find ourselves unable to construe the same as restricting fire safety</i></b><br /> <b><i>clearances being required only in case a coaching or tuition center</i></b><br /> <b><i>is proposed to be operated from a basement. In fact, a prima facie</i></b><br /> <b><i>examination of that clause would appear to indicate it that it has</i></b><br /> <b><i>been placed ex abundati cautela and cannot be read as intending to</i></b><br /> <b><i>extend the requirement of fire safety clearance only where a</i></b><br /> <b><i>coaching center is proposed to be established in a basement of a</i></b><br /> <b><i>building. In our prima facie opinion, the same would not detract</i></b><br /> <b><i>from coaching and tuition centers being required to comply with fire</i></b><br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 7 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> <b><i>safety norms that may be otherwise specified either under the MPD,</i></b><br /> <b><i>2021 or the 2010 Rules.</i></b> <i> We note in this regard that even the UBBL in</i><br /> <i>terms of Para 9.3 incorporates special measures for buildings covered</i><br /> <i>under Rule 27 of the 2010 Rules. Para 9.3 is extracted hereinbelow: -</i><br /> <i>“</i> <b><i>9.3 Fire Safety</i></b><br /> <i>The building plans for buildings covered under Rule 27 of</i><br /> <i>Delhi Fire Service Rules shall be marked fire and life safety</i><br /> <i>measures as per the National Building Code of India</i><br /> <i>concerning minimum standards for fire prevention and fire</i><br /> <i>protection as covered under Rule 33 of the Delhi Fire Service</i><br /> <i>Rules as amended from time to time; unless otherwise</i><br /> <i>specified in these bye –laws.” ”</i><br /> [Emphasis supplied]<br /> 24. During the course of the hearing, this Court was informed that the<br /> petitioners have vacated the subject properties and are no longer running<br /> coaching centers in the subject properties. Accordingly, in terms of the<br /> undertaking filed by the petitioners, the petitioners would be required to take<br /> Fire NOC for operating any coaching centers from the said premises.<br /> 25. The next issue to be examined is that whether the levy of conversion<br /> charges/penalty for misuse was in accordance with law or not.<br /> th<br /> 26. In terms of the judgment dated 11 July 2025 passed in the earlier<br /> writ petitions being <i> W.P.(C) 9578/2025 and the connected matters</i> , the<br /> properties were to be de-sealed after the payment of requisite charges. After<br /> the said judgment was passed in the earlier writ petitions, the petitioners<br /> nd th<br /> were sent demand letters dated 22 July 2025 and 24 July 2025 ( <i>Annexure-</i><br /> <i>C and Annexure-D to W.P.(C) 17877/2025</i> ) that the petitioners were liable<br /> to pay conversion/misuse charges after adjustment of the already paid<br /> amounts.<br /> th<br /> 27. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 26 November, 2025 in the<br /> present batch of petitions, the Deputy Commissioner, MCD gave a personal<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 8 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> hearing to the petitioners and on the basis of the personal hearing, MCD has<br /> calculated the conversion charges as well as parking charges. In respect of<br /> the three of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 17877/2025, W.P.(C) 17890/2025 and<br /> W.P.(C) 17907/2025, penalty has also been levied since the petitioners were<br /> operating coaching centres without a necessary Fire NOC. The benefit of<br /> “Other Activities” in terms of Clause ‘J’ of 15.7.1 of MPD-2021 was given<br /> to petitioner in W.P.(C) 17928/2025, as he was running an ‘Educational<br /> Consultancy’ and hence, no penalty was levied.<br /> 28. The grievance of the petitioner is that the conversion charges, parking<br /> charges and the penalty have wrongly been calculated/imposed by the<br /> respondent-MCD.<br /> 29. In my considered view, these are purely disputed questions of fact<br /> rd<br /> which cannot be gone into in a writ petition. The communication dated 3<br /> February 2026 was sent to the petitioners after the parties were heard at<br /> length and the Deputy Commissioner, MCD passed a speaking order dated<br /> th<br /> 29 January 2026. The respondent-MCD has also given credit to the<br /> petitioners for the parking/conversion charges paid by the petitioners. The<br /> rd<br /> relevant extracts of the communication dated 3 February 2026 are set out<br /> below:<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 9 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> 30. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the writ<br /> petitions and the same are dismissed.<br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 10 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51<br /><br /> 31. Needless to state, upon the petitioners paying the requisite charges, as<br /> th<br /> directed by this Court on 11 July, 2025 and communicated to the<br /> rd<br /> petitioners <i> vide</i> communication dated 3 February, 2026, the MCD shall<br /> forthwith de-seal the subject properties.<br /> <b>AMIT BANSAL, J</b><br /> <b>MARCH 30, 2026</b><br /> <b>ds</b><br /> Signature Not Verified<br /> <b><i>W.P.(C) 17877/2025 and connected matters</i></b> <b><i>Page 11 of 11</i></b><br /> Digitally Signed<br /> By:AARZOO<br /> Signing Date:01.04.2026<br /> 12:29:51</div>