AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to stop the commercial activity being undertaken on the premise of respondent no.6, despite there being a sealing order.
On 19.09.2024 instructions were called from learned counsel for MDDA as to why the sealing order dated 30.01.2023 is not being complied with.
On instructions dated 24.09.2024, learned counsel for MDDA submitted that due to lack of availability of Police force MDDA was not in a position to carry out sealing proceedings while he informed the Court that the sealing proceedings would be undertaken on 27.07.2024 as Police force would be made available to MDDA by the administration. At this matter was fixed for today i.e., 30.09.2024.
Today learned counsel for MDDA has informed the Court that against sealing order, respondent no.6 has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Garhwal Division and a stay order has been obtained by the petitioner against the sealing order, therefore no sealing proceedings can take place pursuant to order dated 30.01.2023.
Since the appeal has been preferred and an interim order has been granted to respondent no.6, therefore at this stage there is no use of keeping the writ petition pending.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.