The board eventually learned that the April 1997 charges had been sealed, and it concluded that this potentially could interfere with its enforcement efforts. Accordingly, it decided to request that the records be "unsealed" on the grounds that the defendant had not disclosed the pendency of the board's investigation when he had asked the judge to seal them pursuant to § 100C. The board did not file an original action against the District Court or the Commissioner seeking such relief. Instead, without moving to intervene, the board simply filed a motion to that effect on the *502closed criminal docket. There is no indication in the record that the board notified the Attorney General, the District Attorney, or the Commissioner that it was taking such action. The defendant, now represented by counsel, opposed the board's motion, arguing that: (1) there is no procedure through which the board -- a third party to the sealing process -- can request that sealed records be unsealed, (2) in any event, the records independently were sealed pursuant to the automatic provision in § 100A, and (3) the sealing of the April 1997 charges in fact would not impede the board's ability to use them in any enforcement proceeding.6 Nevertheless, the judge allowed the board's motion and issued an order that on its face appears to order that the records of the April 1997 charges be unsealed. *96Discussion. Sections 100A and 100C set forth independent paths through which a defendant may seek to have criminal records sealed. See Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296, 298-306, 14 N.E.3d 182 (2014) (distinguishing automatic sealing provisions of § 100A from discretionary sealing provisions of § 100C ). Where, as here, the charges at issue meet the criteria of § 100A, a defendant is entitled to have the records sealed and need pursue only ministerial approval from the Commissioner.7 The judge had no authority to override the terms of the statute providing for such automatic sealing. Assuming arguendo that the judge retained authority to reconsider his earlier decision to have the charges *503sealed pursuant to § 100C, whether he should do so was no longer of any consequence once the charges independently had been sealed pursuant to § 100A. See ibr.US_Case_Law.Schema.Case_Body:v1">id. at 298-299, 14 N.E.3d 182 (subsequent sealing of records pursuant to § 100A rendered moot question as to whether judge should have sealed them pursuant to § 100C ). Because the Commissioner already had sealed the April 1997 charges pursuant to § 100A by the time the board filed its motion, that motion was moot from its inception. Accordingly, we vacate the order allowing it. See generally Aquacultural Research Corp. v. Austin, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 631, 634-635, 41 N.E.3d 318 (2015).8 In addition, so that there be no confusion, this order shall serve as notice to the Boston Municipal Court clerk of his obligation to seal the court's own records regarding the April 1997 charges.