Conditional unsealing of premises permitted subject to undertaking for time-bound rectification of fire safety deficiencies.

The Petitioner, a retail company, challenged a challan dated 27.03.2026 and a subsequent order dated 30.03.2026 cancelling its Trade License and sealing its business premises.

Following a joint inspection, the Respondents had issued a notice granting the Petitioner fifteen days to rectify deficiencies related to fire safety and hygiene.

However, the authorities re-inspected the premises within two days and proceeded to seal the store, alleging insufficient progress.

The Petitioner contended this was a highhanded action in violation of natural justice, while the Respondents maintained the action was necessary in the "larger interest of public" due to recent fire incidents in the city.

1. Whether the Respondents’ action of sealing the premises and cancelling the trade license before the expiry of the 15-day notice period was arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the Petitioner could be granted interim relief to continue operations subject to an undertaking to cure the identified safety and hygiene deficiencies.

The Court balanced the administrative requirement of adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a reasonable period for compliance as stipulated in a notice.

The State’s duty to ensure Public Safety under municipal and fire safety regulations.

The Court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant conditional relief based on an undertaking, ensuring statutory compliance while preventing unnecessary loss of business and reputation.

The Court observed the procedural discrepancy where a fifteen-day compliance window was effectively curtailed to two days by the Respondents.

While the Petitioner highlighted the loss of reputation and business, the Respondents emphasized the urgency of fire safety in public spaces.

The Court did not adjudicate on the final merits of the cancellation but sought a pragmatic resolution. It noted the Respondents' willingness to reopen the premises if corrective measures were taken.

Consequently, the Court determined that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the Petitioner to resume operations, provided a high-ranking officer of the company furnished a formal undertaking and Power of Attorney to rectify all deficiencies within a strict timeframe.

The Petitioner is directed to cure all deficiencies in fire safety and hygiene as per the impugned notice by 15.04.2026.

The Respondents/Corporation are authorized to re-inspect the premises on the evening of 15.04.2026. If the work is found unsatisfactory, the Corporation is at liberty to take further coercive action in accordance with the law.