Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to consider the petitioner’s representation seeking restoration and grant of a veterinary trade license within four weeks. Justice Mini Pushkarna, disposing of the writ petition, held that since the case was covered by the Court’s earlier decision in Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr. and other connected matters, similar directions were warranted here.
The Court instructed that the authorities must coordinate, conduct inspection, ensure compliance, and grant the license in accordance with the MCD policy dated 20 December 2023 and Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937. The petitioner was also exempted from paying fresh fees if already deposited earlier.
“The concerned officials of DDA and MCD shall coordinate with each other, so that the representation of the petitioner is dealt with in a comprehensive manner.”
Facts
The petitioner, engaged in the business of selling fish, chicken, and mutton at the Fruit, Vegetable, and Fish Market, Dabri Mor, Palam Road, approached the High Court seeking directions to quash the DDA’s order dated 24 July 2024 and to compel the MCD to grant her a veterinary trade license.
She was the legal owner of Stall No. 24, obtained through an agreement to sell and purchase dated 6 August 2020 executed by the previous owner. Her application for renewal of the license had been rejected, and the stall was sealed following revocation orders issued by the DDA and MCD.
Contending that her case was identical to a batch of matters already decided by the Court in Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr. (order dated 9 September 2025), she sought identical relief, urging the Court to direct both authorities to reconsider her application and restore her business operations.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner’s case, involving revocation of a veterinary trade license, was covered under the precedent of Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr. decided on 9 September 2025.
- Whether the MCD and DDA were obligated to reconsider the petitioner’s license application jointly and in accordance with applicable policy.
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption from repeated payment of license fees.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order dated 24 July 2024 issued by the Deputy Director, DDA (Commercial Estate Branch), was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, as it failed to provide an opportunity of hearing before revoking the license. The petitioner contended that her stall was sealed despite her continued compliance with all regulatory conditions under the MCD’s licensing policy.
It was submitted that the earlier decision of the High Court in Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr. had already settled the issue for traders operating from the same Dabri Mor market, and therefore, her matter stood on identical footing. The petitioner thus prayed for similar directions to be issued for the withdrawal of the revocation orders and reconsideration of her license.
Her counsel further contended that she had already paid all requisite license fees in previous years, and therefore, demanding any additional payment for reconsideration of the license would be unjust and contrary to the Court’s prior directions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi submitted that the present petition was part of a batch of cases already disposed of by the High Court on 9 September 2025. Since the factual and legal questions were identical, it was argued that the same directions should govern this case.
The respondent agreed to comply with the directions issued in the earlier order and had no objection to the petitioner’s representation being considered in coordination with the DDA.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed its earlier ruling in Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr., wherein identical petitioners had challenged revocation of their veterinary licenses for operating non-vegetarian food stalls in the same locality. In that decision, the Court had directed the MCD and DDA to adopt a coordinated approach, conduct a joint inspection, and ensure that all applications were decided in accordance with the MCD’s 2023 policy and Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
Justice Mini Pushkarna reaffirmed that consistency in judicial orders is essential where multiple cases involve the same legal and factual matrix. Since the petitioner was part of the same market group and raised identical grievances, the Court extended the same directions to ensure parity of treatment.
Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937—referred to in the Court’s order—requires that establishments located within specified zones around airports comply with restrictions to prevent public health and aviation hazards. Thus, veterinary trade licenses are subject to additional scrutiny to maintain environmental and health safety near airport zones.
Precedent Analysis
- Kalyan Pratap Singh v. MCD & Anr. (Delhi High Court, 9 September 2025) – The Court directed MCD and DDA to jointly consider traders’ applications for restoration of revoked veterinary licenses at Dabri Mor Market, emphasizing coordinated administrative action.
Applied here as binding precedent since the petitioner operated from the same market and under identical circumstances. - Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Traders (2024) – Reaffirmed that trade licensing decisions must be guided by principles of fairness and adherence to official policy.
Referred to underscore the duty of municipal authorities to act in accordance with established procedures. - State of Uttar Pradesh v. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 – The Supreme Court held that administrative discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily but guided by policy and fairness.
Relied upon implicitly to reinforce the importance of non-arbitrariness in public decision-making.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s case stood squarely covered by the earlier order in Kalyan Pratap Singh, as it involved the same issue of license revocation in the same market area. The Court noted that there was no legal impediment in extending similar relief to ensure uniformity in the treatment of identical cases.
Accordingly, Justice Mini Pushkarna issued the following detailed directions:
- The petitioner must submit a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Najafgarh Zone (MCD) and to the Commercial Estate Branch of DDA.
- Both authorities must consider and decide the representation within four weeks, coordinating their actions for comprehensive disposal.
- The petitioner shall be given a personal hearing, and her premises shall be inspected to verify compliance with the MCD’s 2023 policy.
- The authorities must satisfy themselves regarding compliance with Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
- If the petitioner fulfills all stipulated conditions, the MCD and DDA shall issue the requisite license within the prescribed period.
- The petitioner was exempted from paying any fresh license fee if already paid earlier.
The Court further directed that the next date of hearing (24 November 2025) be cancelled, as the petition stood disposed of with these directions.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the MCD and DDA to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the earlier Kalyan Pratap Singh order. The authorities were instructed to act jointly and expeditiously within four weeks, ensuring compliance with policy norms and safety regulations.
“Representation of the petitioner shall be duly considered in terms of the policy of the MCD, issued vide Office Order dated 20 December 2023, by the Department of Veterinary Services.”
This decision underscores the Court’s emphasis on consistency, procedural fairness, and coordinated governance among public authorities.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that authorities cannot act unilaterally in revoking or granting trade licenses where multiple agencies are involved. It ensures that traders are treated uniformly and given an opportunity of hearing in compliance with administrative fairness.
The decision also highlights the judicial insistence on inter-departmental coordination, preventing duplication, delays, or contradictory decisions by the MCD and DDA. Further, the exemption from repeated license fee payment provides relief to small traders affected by procedural overlaps.
FAQs
1. What does Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 require?
Rule 91 restricts certain commercial activities around airport zones to ensure public health and flight safety. Establishments must comply with these standards before obtaining or renewing licenses.
2. What is the significance of the MCD’s policy dated 20 December 2023?
This policy lays down updated conditions for issuing and renewing veterinary trade licenses in Delhi, ensuring hygienic standards and compliance with zoning norms.
3. Why did the Court exempt the petitioner from paying fresh fees?
The Court held that since the petitioner had already deposited license fees earlier, she should not be burdened again for procedural reconsideration of her application.
