M/S Marta'S And Girls Foods vs. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Marta’s and Giri’s Foods, operates an eatery named 'Casa Bella Vista' in premises leased in Sector-10, Chandigarh, since 2013. The premises are part of a site allotted in 1961 for a coal depot. The petitioner possesses a GST registration and a food safety license. On December 26, 2023, the Administration sealed the premises without prior notice or hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner learned that the sealing was based on an order dated October 3, 2023, by the Estate Officer, subsequently affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, due to alleged non-sanctionable building violations. The petitioner contends this action violates the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952, and the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, as well as principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the sealing of the petitioner's premises was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 10 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007. The respondent-Administration conceded that the petitioner, as an occupier, should have been served with a show cause notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing before the sealing order was passed. The Court found that no such notice or hearing was provided to the petitioner throughout the proceedings. Consequently, the orders dated October 3, 2023, November 15, 2023, and December 22, 2023, passed by the Estate Officer, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority, respectively, were set aside. The Court directed the competent authority to re-initiate the proceedings in accordance with Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules and to de-seal the premises forthwith. The Court explicitly stated that this order does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the sealing of the petitioner's premises, a leased commercial establishment, without affording a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violates the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulations) Act, 1952, and the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the sealing order and its subsequent affirmations were passed without providing any notice or hearing to them, despite being the lawful occupier of the premises. This contravenes the Act of 1952, the Rules made thereunder, and the fundamental principles of natural justice. They relied on Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules, which mandates notice and hearing for occupiers before sealing. Respondents' arguments: The respondent-Administration, through their counsel, conceded that the petitioner, being a tenant in occupation, was required to be served with a show cause notice and heard before the sealing order was passed. They further admitted that the provisions of Rule 10 of the 2007 Rules and the principles of natural justice were violated.