JUDGMENT Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral) [The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode] CM APPL. 8975/2023 (for exemption) 1. This is an application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures. 2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 3. Application stands disposed of. CM(M) 291/2023 4. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 02.05.2022 passed by learned Appellate Tribunal MCD (in short "ATMCD") in Appeal No. 433/2019 titled ' Shashi Kant Sharma vs. MCD ' whereby learned ATMCD had directed the MCD to de-seal the property temporarily and calculate the misuse charges and subsequently re-seal the property. The matter was renotifed for consideration on 01.11.2022. 5. Mr. Arjun Anand, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and submits that as per the inspection report filed by the MCD, there was no misuser of the property inasmuch no cow was found there, which was the basis of the allegations of misuser of the premises for running a diary farm. 6. Learned counsel further submits that having regard to the fact that verification inspection report of the MCD itself categorically disclosed that the subject premises has not been misused, the direction of the learned ATMCD vide order dated 02.05.2022 as well as consequential order dated 01.11.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit the said misuse charges is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Anand further submits that even before the appeal is directed to be decided on its own merits, directing the petitioner to deposit the entire misuser charges, which is still pending adjudication, is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of learned ATMCD. 8. Mr. Anand also submits that there is not even a prima facie finding by the learned ATMCD to have come to a conclusion that there is any such misuse. 9. Per Contra, Mr. Vijay Joshi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/MCD submits that, no doubt the appeal is to be decided on merits, however, it is by the directions of the ATMCD that the respondent carried out the inspection and has calculated the misuser charges. 10. Mr. Joshi further submits that direction to deposit the misuser charges is only to ensure that revenue/penalty to be collected by the MCD is available to it in case the petitioner defaults in making the payment of misuser charges as and when decided by the appellant Court i.e. ATMCD. 11. 10. Mr. Joshi further submits that direction to deposit the misuser charges is only to ensure that revenue/penalty to be collected by the MCD is available to it in case the petitioner defaults in making the payment of misuser charges as and when decided by the appellant Court i.e. ATMCD. 11. This Court has considered the submissions made by counsel for the respective parties and has also perused the orders dated 02.05.2022 as well as 01.11.2022. 12. At the outset, it appears that the direction of ATMCD for the petitioner to deposit the misuser charges as calculated by the respondent/MCD without even touching upon the issues arising and emanating in appeal on merits is contrary to the procedure known to law. 13. However, despite the fact that the order of the ATMCD does not appear to be in line with the procedural law of this Country, this Court deems it fit to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1 Lac before ATMCD within six weeks from today. This would ensure the balance of equities for the parties. 14. Learned ATMCD is requested to decide the appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by any observations made herein, in accordance with law. 15. Needless to state that the amount so deposited shall obviously accrue to the party which obtains favourable order from learned ATMCD. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.