A dispute has emerged in Vasant Kunj between a cloud kitchen operator and the Delhi Police over allegations of harassment, bribery, and regulatory enforcement linked to late-night business operations. The owner of Glisco Kitchens, Gagandeep Singh Sapra, has accused police personnel of issuing threats and demanding informal payments to allow the kitchen to function beyond 10 pm, while the police have firmly denied any wrongdoing and cited legal and public-order concerns.
According to Sapra, officers allegedly visited the premises during late-night hours and warned staff to shut operations immediately, even using threatening language. He further claimed that when he sought help through emergency channels, the same personnel returned and suggested that continuing operations would require a “monthly setting,” implying bribery. The allegations also include claims that attempts to file a formal complaint were discouraged, leaving the business with limited options but to halt its night services.
In contrast, the Delhi Police stated that no misconduct had been found and invited the complainant to submit evidence for a formal vigilance inquiry. Officials explained that the action taken was preventive in nature, following complaints from local residents about excessive late-night activity and congestion caused by delivery vehicles. They also noted that during inspection, the establishment allegedly failed to produce valid licences required for operating during late hours, which justified the shutdown under existing regulations.
The situation escalated after repeated visits by police personnel, with the business owner stating that he was advised to arrange private security if he wished to continue operations at night due to reported theft incidents in the area. As a result, the cloud kitchen has suspended its overnight services, affecting employees and operations.
The case now highlights a broader issue involving regulatory compliance, enforcement practices, and allegations of misuse of authority. While the business claims coercion and harassment, the police maintain that their actions were based on law-and-order considerations, licence requirements, and public complaints, leaving the matter dependent on further investigation and evidence.
