M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARUN MISHRA, J. IN RE: ISSUE RELATING TO JURISDICTION OF THE C MONITORING COMMITTEE

1Copy pinpoint1. We are dealing with the authority of the “Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises on the private land” particularly when they are not being used for the “commercial purpose”. Whether the Monitoring Committee could have sealed these residential premises is D the only question which we are examining in this order.

2Copy pinpoint2. Report No.149 dated 2.⁴.2019 submitted by the Monitoring Committee concerning specific unauthorized constructions allegedly carried out in the Vasant Kunj and Rajokari area. These constructions were not on public land. The respective persons owned the land, and the E Committee had submitted that a letter was received from the SDM, Mehrauli on 22.².2019 regarding unauthorized construction in Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

3Copy pinpoint3. A reply was filed on behalf of the residents that various residential premises were sealed where constructions were made long back. There was no authority with the Monitoring Committee to seal purely residential premises. It was pointed out that their structure was in consonance with the Master Plan (MPD-2021) within Low Density Residential Area (LDRA) modified vide Notification No.S.O.1199 (E) dated 10.⁵.2013 and Notification No.S.O.1744 (E) dated 18.⁶.2013. Reliance was placed on the various by laws/statutory provisions. It was submitted that the Monitoring Committee was not authorized to take action, and the residential premises should be de-sealed. It was also pointed out that compounding has been made in some cases. The structure should not be demolished, given the provisions of the applicable

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 727 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

acts, by-laws, and policy. It has to be regularized for which prayer was pending before concerned authorities.

4Copy pinpoint4. It was further contended that it is a residential area, farmhouses were notified as Low-Density Residential Areas, and the premises were used as residential premises. They are in accord with MPD-2021. “Mehrauli” is an urbanized village. The Monitoring Committee was not empowered to seal the premises used for residential purposes. It was permissible to raise the construction for the use of a residence as provided under Clause 4.⁴.³ G of MPD-2021. Reliance has also been placed on NDRA Policy.

5Copy pinpoint5. We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Anitha Shenoy and C Shri A.D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Rakesh Khanna, Shri Siddharth Luthra, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri R.C. Mishra, Shri Nalin Kohli, Shri Wasim A. Qadri, Shri Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Addl. Solicitor General, Shri D.N. Goburdhan, Shri Naveen Kumar, Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the D parties.

6Copy pinpoint6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae with his usual vigour urged that Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985 was filed in this Court regarding environment in Delhi, shifting of heavy industries, noxious industries, stopping of all mining in Aravali hills in and around Delhi E including demolition of colonies built on forest land, misuse of premises (misuse includes unauthorized construction), i.e., construction without sanction, lack of civic amenities and the need for their upgradation, etc. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee in the year 2006. Various orders have been referred to submit that the Monitoring Committee is F entitled to inspect premises in which any illegal construction has been made. This Court restored its power on 6.12.2017. A Special Task Force was set up to ensure that the order of the court and applicable bylaws were implemented. LDRA Policy in derogation of the MPD-2021 is notified on 7.².2007. G

7Copy pinpoint7. Learned Amicus attracted the attention of this Court to orders dated 24.⁴.2018, 8.⁵.2018, 15.⁵.2018, 18.⁵.2018, 24.⁵.2018, and various other orders and certain reports, which we will refer later. He has pointed out that the Special Task Force was constituted on 25.⁴.2018. The Monitoring Committee has the power to seal unauthorized construction, H

p. 728 Copy page pinpoint

A and regularization thereof cannot be allowed. He has attracted the attention of this Court to the O.M. dated 23.⁵.2018 issued by the Government of India containing an action plan for monitoring of all construction activities in Delhi and fixing responsibility in case of violations of MPD-2021for unauthorized encroachments and other illegal construction activities. B

8Copy pinpoint8. Learned Amicus Curiae also argued that the Monitoring Committee is authorized to see construction with sanction plan or construction contrary to sanction plan. Alternatively, it was submitted by the learned Amicus that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the Monitoring Committee was not entrusted with the power concerning C residential premises when they were not being used for “commercial purpose” as the power of sealing was exercised (as per Report No.149) bonafidely on the request made by the SDM and any order, which may be passed and ordered to be prospective in operation.

9Copy pinpoint9. Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General D appearing on behalf of the Ministry of Housing and Environment submitted that the Monitoring Committee is entitled to inspect the premises where encroachments are there on public land. Attention has been invited to this Court’s order dated 3.1.2012, which was recalled vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2017. This Court on 15.12.2017 ordered the E Monitoring Committee to continue to work as it was doing before 3.1.2012. This Court constituted the Monitoring Committee on 23.⁴.2006 for the limited purpose of addressing the use of “residential premises for commercial purpose”. Despite the limited mandate to the Monitoring Committee, it illegally sealed other premises. A Special Task Force has been constituted as per order dated 24.⁴.2018 to remove the F encroachments on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian street, and it was for the Monitoring Committee to suggest to the Special Task Force the areas where immediate action was required to be taken concerning aforesaid aspect. The Special Task Force was constituted under section 5(3) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Thus, it is a G statutory body. It has the task of overseeing the implementation of the applicable laws regarding illegal constructions, encroachment on public land, public parks, parking places, roads, pavements, etc. Special Task Force is taking adequate action as and when a violation is reported.

10Copy pinpoint10. Shri D.N. Goburdhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of H the Government of NCT of Delhi, has raised the following arguments:

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 729 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

a. That the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, “the A DMC Act”) is a complete code by itself. The Delhi Municipal Corporation is a statutory body which cannot be deprived of its functions. He has also attracted the attention of this Court to the Building Regulations and to sections 334 and 335 of the DMC Act relating to sanctions, additions, alterations, and its power to take action in appropriate cases. He submitted that the DMC Act is a complete code by itself as it provides how the sealing is to be done, when it is to be enforced, and in case of its failure, the remedy is provided under section 490. Statutory appeals are provided under the DMC Act to the Appellate Tribunal and the Administrator. A complete regulatory mechanism is provided for the sealing operation of properties. Thus, it cannot be deprived to exercise its powers conferred by the Monitoring Committee under the DMC Act. b. This Court appointed the Monitoring Committee on 16.².2006 only to prevent misuse of residential premises for commercial use and not with respect to residential premises used for residential purposes. Once the Monitoring Committee does the sealing, no statutory appeal lies before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 347(A) and 347(B) of the Act. The Statutory Appeals were transferred to the Monitoring Committee, which ordered the sealing of the premises. The principle of natural justice was thus thrown to winds. The order appointing the Monitoring Committee was for limited purpose and power was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution. The order too deserves to be recalled in view of the decisions of this Court in A. R Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) 2 SCC 602, Bonkya vs. State of Maharashtra (1995) 6 SCC 447, Prem Chand Garg v. Executing Commissioner U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996 and SCBA vs. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC

409. F c. That the executive, legislative and judicial functions of the statutory bodies are demarcated under the Constitution, and statutory provisions cannot be taken away by the Monitoring Committee. Reliance is placed on Arif Hameed v. State of J & K, (1989) Supp. [2] SCC 364. d. The legislature has conferred statutory power to seal or demolish G on the Municipal Corporation, and Monitoring Committee cannot exercise its power in total abrogation to the powers of the statutory bodies.

11Copy pinpoint11. Shri Rakesh Khanna, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the LAC’s Federation of Delhi, submitted that this Court on H

p. 730 Copy page pinpoint

A 15.12.2017 passed judgment and order with respect to sealing of the residential premises used for commercial purposes in Delhi. The Monitoring Committee has exercised power unauthorizedly. The orders were passed in order to stop the unauthorized commercial use of the land earmarked for residential purposes, as provided in the Zonal Plan. The Monitoring Committee without power sealed the premises, which B were in the commercial area for commercial use. He has attracted our attention to certain provisions of the Master Plan. Concerning the aforesaid aspects, we do not propose to deal with it in the instant order. We propose to deal only with the limited question whether the Monitoring Committee is empowered by this Court to seal the residential premises. C We leave the question of commercial plots raised by Shri Khanna to be dealt with separately.

12Copy pinpoint12. Shri Khanna further argued that the Monitoring Committee had no power to seal purely residential premises. He has attracted our attention to this Court’s order by which it was constituted, and various other judgments and orders passed in this regard. He has argued that the Monitoring Committee kept quiet, pursuant to the query made by this Court on 7.⁵.2019 as to whether in past, before Report No.149 was submitted, the Monitoring Committee sealed the residential premises which were not being used for commercial purposes. No past instance was given by the Monitoring Committee regarding sealing of residential premises used for residential purposes, particularly when it was not made on public land. He has also argued with respect to LDRA Policy and as to permissible regularization.

13Copy pinpoint13. Shri Nalin Kohli, learned senior counsel has taken this Court through various orders passed by this Court and the Report of the F Monitoring Committee to submit that this Court appointed the Monitoring Committee for the limited purpose of checking commercial misuse of the residential properties. At no point in time, this Court authorized the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential premises used for the residential purposes that too situated on private land. Thus, the action of G sealing such houses is unwarranted and illegal.

14Copy pinpoint14. Shri Naveen Kumar, learned counsel, has invited our attention to the order dated 7.⁵.2019. This Court sought the Monitoring Committee to specify with respect to its power conferred by the court and secondly, any prior example where the Monitoring Committee sealed such premises. H The Monitoring Committee referred to the orders dated 23.¹¹.2006,

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 731 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

12.².2007, 9.³.2007, and 10.⁴.2007 to justify its action. It was argued A that the orders relied upon by the Committee are not at all relevant for sealing of such premises. The Monitoring Committee was appointed only to prevent commercial misuse of the residential properties. The subsequent orders indicate that it was authorized to deal with the encroachment and unauthorized colonies on public land. B

15Copy pinpoint15. On behalf of the incumbents whose property has been sealed as per the report No.149, similar submissions have been raised. The Monitoring Committee was given limited powers, which was divested on 30.⁴.2012. Later vide order dated 6.12.2017, the Monitoring Committee was restored with the power it exercised earlier. A Special Task Force had been constituted on 25.⁴.2018 pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

16Copy pinpoint16. Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned counsel, argued that under Article 300-A of the Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of its property otherwise than the due procedure of law, is supported by series of judgments of this Court. When the Monitoring Committee is not empowered to deal with such residential premises, it could not have acted. The detailed procedure is provided under the DMC Act along with the Appellate Tribunal under sections 347A and 347B of the DMC Act. The Monitoring Committee, unless specifically authorized by this Court, could not violate the procedure under the DMC Act. Reliance E has been placed by the learned counsel on the various decisions to be referred to later. (i) Particularly when the Monitoring Committee is not empowered to take any such action, no appeal lies against the action of the Monitoring Committee. Only it hears a representation. Not even the High Court can F interfere in the functioning of the Monitoring Committee. (ii) Even with respect to the encroachment on public roads, public streets, and pedestrian streets, the Special Task Force is authorized to take action. Thus, the Monitoring Committee’s power after the constitution of Special Task Force is further restricted, and it is for the G Monitoring Committee to suggest to the Special Task Force with respect to the encroachment on the public land, roads, and public places. (iii) The range of remedies available to the owner of the property in the residential premises’ occupation cannot be deprived of by the Monitoring Committee. The provisions regarding demolition and stoppage H

p. 732 Copy page pinpoint

A of buildings and works in certain cases are contained in section 343 of the DMC Act, section 345 deals with power of the Commissioner to require alteration of the work; section 347A provides for an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, section 347B deals with appeals against certain orders and notices issued under the Act and section 347E deals with the bar of jurisdiction of courts. Once the statutory right is conferred, it cannot be dealt with by the Monitoring Committee until and unless it is authorized. DISCUSSION:

17Copy pinpoint17. The Monitoring Committee was appointed and empowered by this Court to take action within the powers conferred. In the teeth of various statutes, it would act strictly within the four corners of the powers conferred on it by this Court.

18Copy pinpoint18. When we consider the various orders passed by this Court from time to time, before the constitution of the Monitoring Committee, D we find that this Court at no point in time has empowered the Monitoring Committee to take action with respect to residential premises not used for commercial purpose. This Court initially passed an order on 7.⁵.2004 and constituted the Monitoring Committee comprising of (i) Chief Secretary of Delhi, (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi, (iii) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi E Development Authority. It was ordered that Monitoring Committee would be responsible for the stoppage of illegal industrial activities. The order dated 7.⁵.2004 is extracted hereunder: “Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal pronounced the judgment of the Court issuing directions in terms of the signed judgment. A Monitoring Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary of Delhi (ii) Commissioner of Police, Delhi (iii) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi Development Authority has been appointed. This Committee would be responsible for stoppage of illegal industrial activity. It would, however, be open to the aforesaid members of the Monitoring Committee to appoint responsible officers subordinate to them to oversee and ensure compliance of the directions contained in the judgment. H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 733 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filed A by 31st August, 2004 and thereafter it shall be filed at least once in a period of every two months.”

19Copy pinpoint19. (i) The Monitoring Committee was constituted by this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.².2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 399. Following is the relevant portion: B “1. In respect of large number of immovable properties throughout Delhi, flagrant violations of various laws including municipal laws, master plan and other plans besides environmental laws have been engaging the attention of this Court for number of years. With a view to secure the implementation of laws and protect fundamental rights of the citizens, various orders were passed from time to time.

2. This Court has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of Indian citizens. What happens when violators and/or abettors of the violations are those, who have been entrusted by law with a duty to protect these rights? The task becomes difficult and also requires urgent intervention by court so that the rule of law is preserved and people may not lose faith in it, finding violations at the hands of supposed implementers. The problem is not of the absence of law, but of its implementation. E

3. Considering such large-scale flagrant violations, this Court had to prioritise as to which violations may be taken up first and then issue appropriate directions. In this view, at first instance, directions were issued in respect of shifting of hazardous and noxious industries out of Delhi. Directions were also issued for shifting of heavy and large industries as also some extensive industries. For F shifting polluting industries had to be given topmost priority. Later, directions were issued for shifting of other extensive industries considering the continued unauthorised use contrary to master plan and zonal plan, by those industries as well as some other industries continuing in residential/non-conforming areas. G

5. With regard to commercial use of premises in residential areas, it has been more than three years i.e. 30-9-2002 when the order was made directing respondents to file reply. In fact, the question of misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes was taken up even earlier as is apparent from the orders dated 31-7- H

p. 734 Copy page pinpoint

A 2001 and 20-2-2002. By order dated 31-7-2001 passed in News Item AQFMY v. Central Pollution Control Board1 the Court directed that: “MCD will also inform this Court in the affidavit to be filed as to why no requisite action has been taken for stopping the gross misuse of buildings in the residential areas for commercial purposes and in the construction of commercial buildings in residential areas where only residential usage is permitted.”

6. Again on 20-2-2002, the order dated 31-7-2001 was reiterated in the following terms: “MCD is also directed to file within four weeks from today an affidavit indicating as to what it intends to do for stopping the misuse of the buildings in the residential areas which are being used for commercial purposes as has been directed by this Court’s order dated 31-7-2001. If no affidavit is filed, the explanation in respect thereof should be given to the Court by the Municipal Commissioner.”

11. By the impugned judgment dated 31-5-2002, disposing of the aforenoted writ petition and other connected matters, a Full Bench E of the High Court came to the conclusion that neither under the DMC Act nor under the Delhi Development Act, was there any power to seal property for its misuse, inter alia, holding that the power of sealing of premises is drastic as by reason of such sealing, a person could become homeless, thus, affecting his human or fundamental rights and that the power of sealing in relation to F misuse has been intentionally excluded from the provisions of the two Acts. Later, some other matters were also decided by the High Court following the Full Bench decision. Those judgments are also under challenge.” (emphasis supplied) G Following questions were framed by this Court for consideration: “13. The questions to be determined are: A. Whether MCD under the DMC Act has power to seal the premises in case of its misuser? H 1 W.P. No.725 of 1994 dated 31-7-2001

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 735 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

B. Whether DDA, under the Delhi Development Act, has also A similar power of sealing or not? C. Directions to be issued in respect of residential properties used illegally for commercial purposes.

14. In these matters, we are considering only the issue of misuser. We are not considering the issue of unauthorised constructions.” B

(emphasis supplied) (ii) It is apparent that the only question for consideration of this Court was the misuse of the residential premises for illegal or commercial purposes. In paragraph 14 (quoted above), this Court made it clear that C it did not consider the issue of unauthorized constructions. This Court considered the plight of the residential areas in para 33 of the judgment, where it noted large-scale conversion of residential premises for commercial use, thus: “33. Keeping future needs in view, experts prepare master plans. D Perusal of the Delhi Master Plans, 1962 and 2001 shows what were plan projections. At the time of planning, the experts in the field of town planning take into account various aspects, such as, healthy living, environment, lung space need, land use intensity, areas where the residential houses are to be built and where the commercial buildings are to be located, need of household industries, etc. Provision for household industries in residential areas does not mean converting residential houses into commercial shops. It only means permitting activities of household industry in a part of a residential property. It does not mean that residential properties can be used for commercial and trading activities and sale and purchase of goods. Master plan contemplates shops in district centres, community centres, local shopping centres, etc. and not in residential areas. Be that as it may, for the present, we are not considering the cases of small shops opened in residential houses for catering to day-to-day basic needs, but are considering large-scale conversion, in flagrant violation of laws, of residential premises for commercial use.” (emphasis supplied) (iii) The court further considered that none has the right, human or fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use a building for a purpose other than authorized, thus: H

p. 736 Copy page pinpoint

A “35. In the impugned judgment, while dealing with the provisions of the layout plan, it was observed that the provisions for user “are only regulatory in nature”. While dealing with the user, the High Court observed that “the power, whereby and whereunder the basic human rights or the fundamental rights conferred upon a person is taken away, must be specifically conferred by a statute”. B The provisions of user may be regulatory but all the same, they are mandatory and binding. In fact, almost all the planning provisions are regulatory. The violations of the regulatory provisions on massive scale can result in plans becoming merely scraps of paper. That is the ground reality in the capital of the country. C None has any right, human or fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use a building for a purpose other than authorised. Further, the words “unless the context otherwise requires” in Section 331 of the DMC Act are of no consequence for determining the point in issue as the context herein does not provide otherwise for the present purposes. It does not provide D that the power of sealing under Section 345-A cannot be exercised in case of misuser. In view of the clear language of Section 345- A, we are also unable to sustain the view of the High Court that action under Section 345-A can be taken only when there exists order of demolition under Section 343 or an order under sub-section E (1) of Section 344. The conclusion of the High Court that action under Section 345-A can be taken only when there exists an order of demolition under Section 343, or on passing of an order under sub-section (1) of Section 344, and in no other contingency cannot be accepted in view of the clear provision of Section 345-A that action can be taken even before or after an order is made under F those provisions.” (emphasis supplied) (iv) The court eventually issued directions in respect of other residential properties used illegally for commercial purposes, thus: G “47. In special leave petitions and Civil Appeals Nos.608-11 of 2003 challenge is to the judgments of the High Court disposing of writ petitions in terms of law laid down by the Full Bench.

50. In respect of CA No.608 of 2003, MCD issued to the respondents, a show-cause notice dated 1-8-2000 under Section H 345-A read with Sections 347, 343 and 344 of the DMC Act stating

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 737 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

that Property No. 39, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III was being misused in the name and style of “Jagdish Store”. In reply dated 15-9-2000, it was, inter alia, stated that MCD itself has been allowing non-residential activities in residential areas under a special scheme, without, however, giving any details or filing any document in support thereof. Further, we asked the learned counsel for the respondents to place on record the plan for the construction of the building which may have been sanctioned so as to ascertain whether the sanction was for construction of the residential property or commercial property. The plan has not been filed. The reasons are not far to seek. One of the simple methods for ascertaining that there is misuser or not, is to examine the sanctioned plan.

51. At this stage, it would be useful to notice letter dated 28-8- 2000 sent by the Ministry of Urban Development to the Commissioner, MCD, Vice-Chairman, DDA and other authorities conveying the deep concern of Parliament Consultative Committee D over the rising menace of unauthorised construction, suspected connivance of the staff of the different authorities in the matter and requesting the authorities to take strong and prompt action and suggesting ten measures for strict enforcement. The letter reads as under: E “Annexure R-1 No. J-13036/3/96-DDIIB Government of India Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, F Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Dated: 28-8-2000 To,

1. Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, G Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Delhi. H

p. 738 Copy page pinpoint

A 2. Shri P.K. Ghosh, Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.

B 3. Shri S.P. Aggarwal, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Delhi.

4. Shri B.P. Misra, C Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Palika Kendra, New Delhi.

5. The Development Commissioner, D Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Town Hall, New Delhi. Subject: Unauthorised encroachment and illegal constructions in Delhi E Sir, I am directed to say that the menace of illegal encroachment/ unauthorised construction in Delhi has been considered by the Government of India at its highest level and it has been decided to eliminate this menace with a firm hand. You are, therefore, F requested to take strong and prompt action against all illegal constructions/unauthorised encroachments and also against misuses of land in violation of the provisions of the master plan of Delhi. The following measures are particularly required to be enforced strictly: G (i) All illegal constructions should be demolished, not cosmetically but in toto. (ii) The cost of demolition should be recovered from the illegal builders within 15 days of demolition. In case of non- payment within 15 days, the amount due should be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 739 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

(iii) In all cases of illegal constructions, prosecution should invariably be launched against builders under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Delhi Development Act, the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, etc. and the cases followed vigorously with the police authorities/courts. (iv) Wherever the property is on lease, action should be taken under the terms and conditions of lease agreement and re-entry effected within the shortest permissible period under such lease agreement. After re-entry, physical possession of the property should be taken by invoking the provisions of the Public Premises Eviction Act and damages collected immediately. The rates of damages/misuse charges should be the same as per the formula followed by the L&DO and approved by the Ministry of Urban Development. (v) In case of DDA flats, where constructions have come up beyond the condonable limits, cancellation of allotment should be carried out in addition to the demolition of the additional construction. Orders in respect of condonable and non- condonable items are being issued separately. (vi) In cases, where after demolition, reconstruction is done, personal responsibility of the officer-in-charge should be fixed and departmental action taken against him. E

(vii) In cases where illegal constructions have taken place on rural agricultural lands, action under the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, should also be taken and such lands should be taken over as per provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. Action in this respect should be taken as soon as F the plots are cut by the colonisers and construction done in the shape of boundary walls, etc. In other words, construction should be nipped in the bud. If it comes up, it should be demolished immediately. Action in this respect should also be taken by the local agencies concerned/DDA as per the bye- G laws pertaining to layout/service plans, etc. (viii) In all cases where party obtains stay/status quo orders, prompt action to get the stay order vacated should be taken and higher court moved, wherever necessary. H

p. 740 Copy page pinpoint

A (ix) All Senior Field Officers should be asked to carry out physical inspection of the area under their charge and the Supervising Officer should also make surprise checks to ensure that the subordinate staff takes immediate action to check/ demolish unauthorised construction. Deterrent action should also be taken against the subordinate staff such as Building B Inspectors, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, etc. who do not take prompt action. (x) Field Officers should be asked to maintain field diaries and submit them to the Supervisory Officer regularly.

C 2. It is also requested that a monthly report should be sent to the Ministry of Urban Development by the 5th of each succeeding month.

3. In this connection, it may be noted that both Parliament and the Parliament Consultative Committee have expressed deep concern, through questions and interpolations, over the rising menace of unauthorised constructions in Delhi and the suspected connivance of the staff of the different authorities in the matter. A flying squad has been constituted in the Ministry and if, as a result of findings of this squad, it is found that the subordinate staff has not done its duty or not carried out the aforesaid instructions, strict action against the subordinate/supervisory staff would be taken by the Government. Yours faithfully, Sd./- F (Dr. Nivedita P. Haran) Joint Secretary to the Government of India Copy for information and necessary action to:

1. Deputy CVO, Ministry of UD&PA, G Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. L&DO, Ministry of UD&PA, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. DG(W), CPWD, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. Sd/- H (N.L. Upadhyay)

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 741 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

53. Now, we revert to the task of implementation. Despite its difficulty, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the violations also affect the environment and healthy living of law- abiders. The enormity of the problem which, to a great extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean that a beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased manner, beginning with major violators. There has to be a will to do it. We have hereinbefore noted in brief the orders made in the last so many years but it seems the same has had no effect on the authorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on in this manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised constructions and misusers and, on the other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens. We have noticed above the complaints of some of the residents in respect of such illegalities. For the last number of years even the High Court has been expressing similar anguish in the orders made in large number of cases. We may briefly notice some of those orders.” (emphasis supplied) E

(v) The court focused on the misuse of the property and further observed in para 61 regarding misuse thus: “61. Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large-scale cannot take place without connivance of the officers concerned. It is also a source of corruption. Therefore, action is also necessary to check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Those who own the properties that are misused have also implied responsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering H

p. 742 Copy page pinpoint

A caused to the residents of the locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not only the question of stopping the misuser but also making the owners at default accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be the accountability of errant officers as well since, prima facie, such large-scale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place without the active connivance B of the officers. It would be for the officers to show what effective steps were taken to stop the misuser.” (vi) Ultimately, the court has passed the following order while appointing the Monitoring Committee: C “69. Having held that the Commissioner of MCD has power under the DMC Act to seal premises in case of its misuser, we issue the following directions for taking immediate steps to seal residential premises being used for commercial purpose:

1. MCD shall within 10 days give wide publicity in the leading newspapers directing major violations on main roads (some instances of such violators and roads have been noted hereinbefore) to stop misuser on their own, within the period of 30 days.

2. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/occupier to file within 30 days an affidavit with the Commissioner of MCD stating that the misuser has been stopped.

3. In case misuser is not stopped, sealing of the premises shall commence after 30 days, from the date of public notice, first taking up the violations on roads which are 80 ft wide and more. F All authorities are directed to render full assistance and cooperation. After expiry of 30 days from the date of public notice, electricity and water supply shall be disconnected.

4. Details of the roads and the violations shall also be placed on the website by MCD and copies also sent to Resident Welfare Associations of the area which should be involved in the process G of sealing of misuser. The Commissioner of MCD shall file an affidavit, within two weeks, in terms of directions contained in this judgment, whereafter directions for constitution of the monitoring committee would be issued. The sealing would be effected by the officers authorised by the Commissioner of MCD H in consultation with the monitoring committee.

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 743 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

5. The appropriate directions for action, if any, against the officers responsible for the misuse and for payment of compensation by them and by violators would be issued after the misuser is stopped.

6. None will tamper with the seals. Any tampering with seal will be sternly dealt with. Tampering with seal will include opening another entrance for use of premises.

7. It would be open to the owner/occupier to approach the Commissioner for removal of the seal on giving undertaking that the premises would be put to only authorised use.

8. Particulars of cases where violators may have obtained orders of stay will be filed in this Court by MCD.

9. MCD shall file monthly status report as to action taken by 15th of each month commencing from 10-4-2006.

10. In case misuser is not stopped in the premises involved in the civil appeals and special leave petitions, subject to what is stated in this judgment, MCD will take immediate steps to seal those premises soon after expiry of 30 days.” (emphasis supplied) It is clear from the above-mentioned order dated 16.².2006 in E M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (supra) that this Court noted unauthorized construction but appointed the Monitoring Committee to put a restraint on the misuse of the residential premises for the unauthorized/commercial purpose. Pursuant to the order dated 16.².2006, the Monitoring Committee was formed on 24.³.2006. F

20Copy pinpoint20. The court again emphasized that its order should be carried out in letter and spirit in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 SCC 429 passed on 24.³.2006 thus: “4. In order to oversee the implementation of the law, namely, sealing of offending premises in terms of the letter and spirit of G this Court’s directions, it is necessary to appoint a Monitoring Committee instead of leaving any discretion with the officers of MCD. Accordingly, we appoint a Monitoring Committee comprising of Mr K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to the Election Commissioner, Mr Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major H

p. 744 Copy page pinpoint

A General (Retd.) Som Jhingan. We direct that all necessary facilities shall be supplied by MCD to the members of the Monitoring Committee, including the facility of transport, secretarial services, honorarium, etc.

9. IAs Nos.1921, 1922 and 1923 have been filed by three associations whereas IAs Nos.1918-19 have been filed by an individual business house. The applicant of IA No.1919 has filed an affidavit giving an undertaking to this Court to stop the misuser within the time granted by this Court. The applications filed on behalf of the associations state that in the event of this Court granting time, they would ensure that the benefit of time is given only to those who file individual affidavit and undertaking as per the directions of this Court. In the order dated 16-2-2006, the Court has already pointed out the extent, nature and magnitude of the contravention of various laws. Be that as it may, we grant not only to the applicant associations or their members but to others too, time to stop the misuser up to 30-6-2006 subject to every individual claiming such benefit filing affidavit stating that (1) on or before 30-6-2006, misuser shall be stopped and no further extension on any ground whatsoever shall be asked for, (2) giving an undertaking to the effect that violation of condition of not stopping the misuser by 30-6-2006 would subject him/her to the offence of perjury and contempt of court for violation of the order of the Court. The benefit will be available only to those who file the affidavit with MCD on or before 28-3-2006.” (emphasis supplied)

F This Court directed to prevent misuse of the property in accordance with the previous order to mean that residential premises/ area should not be used for commercial purposes. A large number of reports of the Monitoring Committee carried ‘Caption’ “REPORT OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE, SEALING OF THE COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL G PREMISES”.

21Copy pinpoint21. In Report No.8, the Monitoring Committee reported liquor shops in convenient/local shopping centers located in residential areas and other professional activities. This Court passed an order on 18.10.2006 regarding Report No.8 thus: H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 745 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

“I.A.No.1983: A In view of the order passed in I.A.No.1980 above, this application stands disposed of. Report No.8 of the Monitoring Committee: We have perused the 8th report of the Monitoring Committee B dated 17th October, 2006. The recommendation contained in para 1 of the report, except last three lines, are accepted. The said three lines read as under: “In addition, it is presumed by the Monitoring Committee that small shops will also be allowed in A & B category of colonies as per C the Hon’ble Court’s order dated 29.09.2006.” The learned Solicitor General, on instructions, states that the Government is not contemplating to allow small shops in colonies of category A & B. In this view of the stand, the afore- quoted recommendation is not accepted. D In respect of para 4 of the report relating to the sealing of liquor shops in convenient/local shopping centres located in residential areas, we find no ground to direct sealing of liquor shops. The convenient/local shopping centres are in the commercial areas earmarked in residential areas and there does not appear to be any legal impediment for the liquor trade to be conducted from the said commercial areas. However, the liquor trade cannot be permitted to be carried on in mixed land use since the first floor onwards are expected to be used for residential purposes only and thus liquor trade in such residential areas cannot be allowed to be continued. This part of recommendation in para 4 of the report is accepted. Regarding recommendations 5 and 6 regarding professional activities and the basement are concerned, learned Solicitor General states that since the matter is under consideration of the Government, for the present, the sealing in respect thereof may not be continued. Learned counsel further states that it will take about six weeks to decide these matters. Further, it may be noted that in para 21(v)(e) of our order dated 29th September, 2006, for illustrative purpose, only four professions were mentioned but it is clear that other professions are not excluded. The term H

p. 746 Copy page pinpoint

A ‘professionals’ has been made inclusive by use of the word ‘including’. In view of the above, for the present, sealing need not continue in respect of the activities mentioned in para 5 and 6 of the report of the Monitoring Committee. The recommendation in regard to desealing, contained in para 7 of the report, is also accepted. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to file its report/response, within four weeks, in regard to what is stated by the Monitoring Committee in para 8, namely, large number of building basement, lower basement, ground floor + four floors having come up in blatant violation of the Building Bye Laws. In view of the time having been extended as above, the matter, instead of November, 2006, be now listed in February, 2007. The Monitoring Committee is directed to supply copy of each of its report to learned Solicitor General and learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.” (emphasis supplied) It is apparent from the report that it was with respect to misuse of the residential premises for commercial purpose and unauthorized constructions on public land.

22Copy pinpoint22. On 15.¹¹.2006, this Court exempted ration shops and cycle repair shops running in residential premises from sealing. Report No.12 was considered with respect to the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes. F

23Copy pinpoint23. This Court passed further order on 23.¹¹.2006, which was also with respect to misuse of the premises. Undertakings were filed to the effect that they have stopped commercial activities in the residential premises. The relevant portion of the order dated 23.¹¹.2006 is extracted hereunder: G “Subject to what we note hereinafter, persons who have either earlier or now have stopped commercial activity in terms of the undertakings/ affidavits filed but are covered by the two notifications above-noted, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, are temporarily relieved of the undertakings and H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 747 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

placed at par with other covered by Direction No.³ of the order A dated 29th September, 2006. The conditions stipulated in the said Direction No.³ would be applicable to such traders/ professionals. The present order is in continuation of the orders passed on 29th September, 2006, 18th October, 2006, 6th November, 2006 and 15th November, 2006. B However, thirty four establishments mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ will not be entitled to above concession. The Monitoring Committee can verify ad if they have not ceased commercial activity, the premises shall be sealed and it be ensured that commercial activity is not carried on by them. C *** *** *** In Paragraph (4), it has been noticed that, on a surprise check, some buildings were noticed on which certain sofas were put on each floor to give it a residential look even through no one appears to be living in it and the impression was that though building was sanctioned only for residential purposes and no commercial activity was going on but fresh commercial activity may commence. According to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as noted therein, where commercial activity has not yet commenced, building can be booked for violation of building plans. Directions are sought that Municipal Corporation of Delhi be asked to issue public notice that no commercial activity/ fresh commercial activity shall be allowed without first getting the building plans approved and on registration and payment of conversion and parking charges. Example of one such stretch of road is mentioned in Paragraph (4) from Mool Chand Hospital crossing to Ashram Chowk. It is to be made clear that no fresh commercial activity in building sanctioned for residential purposes can be allowed and on violation being noticed, it would be the personal liability of the Deputy Commission of the concerned zone to take appropriate action. It will also be the personal liability of the concerned Station House Officer to inform the concerned officers in the Municipal G Corporation of Delhi. If, despite that, the commercial activity is noticed, these officers shall have to be held personally liable for the consequences. Simply booking a building for violation of building plans on paper has proved to be totally ineffective. There are thousands of buildings which have been booked by the Municipal H

p. 748 Copy page pinpoint

A Corporation of Delhi in the last number of years but on paper only without any action. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as suggested in Paragraph (4), shall issue public notice in consultation with the Monitoring Committee.” It is apparent from the order that the report and the order pertained to misuse of the residential premises for commercial purposes.

24Copy pinpoint24. The order dated 12.².2007 was in relation to the stopping of the sealing by the Monitoring Committee at the instance of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority until further orders. It was to be operative only concerning those premises covered under the MPD-2021 and not for those which were not covered by the Master Plan. Following order was passed on 12.².2007: “….In view of this arrangement, the interim order stopping sealing by the Monitoring Committee with the assistance of MCD and DDA shall remain operative until further orders. This order shall be operative only in respect of those premises which are covered by the Master Plan, 2021 and not for those which are not covered by the Master Plan. ….”

25Copy pinpoint25. The order dated 9.³.2007 was passed to comply with the order dated 12.².2007. Following order was passed by this Court on 9.³.2007: E “We have perused the Report No.31 of the Monitoring Committee. It needs no reiteration that our order dated 12.².2007 shall be carried out to its logical end. Needless to say all authorities concerned shall ensure compliance of our order.” It is apparent from the order dated 9.³.2007 that the order is in consonance with the said report, and the report clarifies that it was for commercial activities and mixed land use. The Monitoring Committee itself sought permission for continuation of sealing of the portion of the commercial establishment in the residential areas, which were not covered by MPD-2021. Thus, the confusion sought to be created based on MPD- 2021 is absolutely unjustified. The order dated 10.⁴.2007 is an interim order stopping sealing by the Monitoring Committee. This Court did not authorize the Monitoring Committee to seal the residential properties being used for residential purposes. The order is of no relevance to decide the question of the authority of the Monitoring Committee.

26Copy pinpoint26. On IA No.22, this Court in its order dated 10.⁴.2007 considered H Report No.34, contents of which are placed by following orders:

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 749 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

“We are shocked to find that in spite of our earlier orders, A there has been a total sense of non-cooperation exhibited by the M.C.D. and the police officials. The report of the Monitoring Committee shows that on 03.⁴.2007, 04.⁴.2007 and 09.⁴.2007, the police authorities did not cooperate in the matter of sealing of the unauthorized premises. B Let the Commissioner of Delhi Police and the concerned area Police Officers appear in person on 11.⁴.2007 before this Court and file affidavits indicating as to under what circumstances the orders of this Court were not carried out and there was non cooperation in the matter of sealing. Similar shall be the position so far as the Commissioner, M.C.D. is concerned. C

The matter shall be listed tomorrow, i.e. 11.⁴.2007 for this purpose only. These cases shall be listed on 07.⁵.2007. Before that date, learned solicitor General shall indicate the time schedule during D which the various infrastructural deficiencies pointed out by leaned Amicus-Curiae are expected to be taken care of. It needs no reiteration that areas which are not covered by the Master Plan are not exempted from sealing operations. Only those areas and constructions which are prima facie covered by the Master Plan, shall be left out of sealing operations. E

Report No.34 of the Monitoring Committee shall be kept in a sealed cover. Copies of the Monitoring Committee’s said Report shall be given only to the learned counsel for M.C.D., Delhi Police and learned Solicitor General. The Charts submitted by Learned A.C. be kept on record. If any person, who has interest in the litigation wants to have a say in the matter, that can only be routed through learned Amicus- Curiae. The necessary information and materials be given to learned Amicus-Curiae. The response of the DDA shall also be filed which shall be taken on record.” Report No.34 was not regarding premises used purely for residential purposes. H

p. 750 Copy page pinpoint

27Copy pinpoint27. This Court passed an order on 3.1.2012, which is extracted hereunder: “After hearing Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus on Report No.85 and related issues and considering the submissions made by other learned counsel, we deem it proper to hear the main B matter involving challenge to the validity of the law enacted by Parliament and the notifications issued by the Central Government. List the case on 13.³.2012. It is expected that on that day no request will be made for adjournment. Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring C Committee shall not order further sealing of the premises which are under its scrutiny. We also direct that no construction, temporary or permanent, shall be made on the premises which have been subject matter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and no order shall be passed by the Government or any authority regularising such construction or sanction the change of user. The Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal Corporation and Municipal Corporation of Delhi are directed to ensure that no encroachment is made on any public land, whether belonging to the Government or any public authority. They shall also ensure that no illegal construction is made on any of the properties which has been subject matter of scrutiny by the Monitoring Committee. The Monitoring Committee shall be entitled to inspect the premises in which any illegal construction may have been made after this order or any encroachment on public land or regularisation and if necessary, submit report to this Court. Any person desirous of getting a copy of any report of the Monitoring Committee may make an application to the Monitoring G committee and the required report be furnished to the applicant within a period of ten days on payment of usual charges. It is also made clear that any party shall be free to file an appropriate application before the Monitoring Committee for its consideration and appropriate order. H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 751 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

IA Nos.2518-2521 A Shri M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants state that in view of the developments which have taken place after the last order of the Court, the applications have become infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. B In view of the statement of learned senior counsel, IA Nos.2518-2521 are disposed of as infructuous. We hope and trust that the order passed by the Monitoring Committee will be implemented at the earliest.” (emphasis supplied) C

It was ordered that the Monitoring Committee shall do no further sealing of the premises, which are under its scrutiny. No construction, temporary or permanent, shall be raised, which is the subject matter of the scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee. No order shall be passed by the Government or any authority regularizing such construction or sanction the user’s change.

28Copy pinpoint28. The order dated 30.⁴.2013 was passed regarding the misuse/ non-conforming use of the residential premises thus: “3. The judgment in regard to the misuse/non-conforming use of residential premises, and power to seal premises, arising in IA No.22, as also, several appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ’MCD’) which arose out of a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court were decided by a judgment dated 16.².2006 and is reported as, “M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 399”. It was, inter alia, held that the MCD F had power to seal the premises for non-conforming user in terms of Section 345 A of the MCD Act, and various directions were issued.

4. These cases relate to the matter of non-conforming user of premises, and the orders passed thereon, after the judgment of G 16.².2006, under the special provisions made by the Parliament qua Delhi, the various provisions of the Master Plan which according to some of the petitioners were flawed because of the non-availability of the physical and social infrastructure.” H

p. 752 Copy page pinpoint

A Further, this Court observed with respect to authority or scope of the Monitoring Committee and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee was appointed thus: “8. (i) We had, as noticed above, by our order dated 24.³.2006, appointed the Monitoring Committee for looking into the aspect B of sealing of premises, which were being put to the non-conforming user. The Monitoring Committee had ordered the sealing of those premises. Against which, a large number of the applicants have approached the Court (by filing writ petitions which were converted into IAs, or by filing IAs) praying for desealing. All the said IAs are still pending consideration before this Court. We C propose to issue appropriate directions in the said IAs as well. …”

29Copy pinpoint29. On 6.12.2017, this Court reserved its orders on IA Nos.93010 and 93007 of 2017, which were decided on 15.12.2017. In the order dated 6.12.2007, this Court considered the matter with respect to D unauthorized colonies, which came up as per reports dated 12.⁴.2016 and 30.10.2017. It was observed in the order that the power of the Monitoring Committee be restored. While the order was reserved on the aforesaid date on IA No.93010 and 93007 of 2017, the relevant portion is extracted: E “1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens and officials governing the capital city – we refer to unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on these F illegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions from time to time to try and bring some sanity to urban living but to little or no effect. The applications before us, the chronology of events and the historical developments leading up to these applications has given cause to reflect and decide on some of these issues keeping our constitutional obligations in mind. G

3. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, had already moved this Court with an application to find a remedy for the air pollution in Delhi in a pending writ petition. Although he sought several reliefs, this Court first concentrated on use of residential areas for industrial purposes and later, the misuse of residential premises for other commercial activities. For the present, we are concerned

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 753 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

with the misuse of residential premises for other commercial activities. These issues first arose when preliminary orders were passed by this Court on his application on 30th September, 2002 and 19th August, 2003. Thereafter, this Court addressed the issue of residential areas being used for industrial purposes by a judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.² B *** *** ***

10. Having passed orders on 7th May, 2004 relating to unauthorized industrial activity in Delhi and being compelled to set up a Monitoring Committee, this Court focused its attention on yet another problem facing the citizens of Delhi, namely, that of misuse C of residential premises for commercial purposes. In the decision dated 16th February, 2006 in M.C. Mehta, this Court noted in paragraph 53 of the Report that it cannot remain a mute spectator when violations of the law affect the environment and the healthy living of those who abide by the law. It was stated, and the pain and anguish of this Court is quite apparent: D

“Despite its difficulty, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator when the violations also affect the environment and healthy living of law-abiders. The enormity of the problem which, to a great extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, does not mean that a beginning should not be made to set things right. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a phased manner, beginning with major violators. There has to be a will to do it. We have hereinbefore noted in brief the orders made in the last so many years but it seems the same has had no effect on the authorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on in this manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted, master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made in the plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised constructions and misusers and, on the other hand, such illegal activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone, without having any respect and regard for law and other citizens.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

p. 754 Copy page pinpoint

A 11. This Court observed that if the laws are not enforced and orders of the Courts to implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. In the decision rendered on 16th February, 2006 this Court noted, quite explicitly and not in a veiled manner, that blatant misuse of properties in Delhi for commercial purposes on such a large-scale could not take place without the B connivance of the officers and that it was therefore necessary to take action to check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of citizens – and we may add, chaos and disaster. This Court noted that there must be some accountability not only of those violating the law but also of those errant officers who turn a C blind eye to the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes. It was observed in paragraph 61 of the Report as follows: “Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the [Delhi] High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and the implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the laws are not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large- scale cannot take place without connivance of the officers concerned. It is also a source of corruption. Therefore, action is also necessary to check corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Those who own the properties that are misused have also implied responsibility towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering caused to the residents of the locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, not only the question of stopping the misuser but also making the owners at default accountable for the injuries caused to others. Similar would also be the accountability of errant officers as well since, prima facie, such large-scale misuser, in violation of laws, cannot take place without the active connivance of the officers. G It would be for the officers to show what effective steps were taken to stop the misuser.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

12. In view of the above, this Court directed the Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short the MCD) to give wide publicity in leading newspapers of the requirement that those misusing their residential H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 755 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

premises for commercial purposes should cease the misuse on their own. It was also directed that 30 days after the issuance of the public notices, and if the misuse is not stopped, the process of sealing the premises would start. The period of 30 days expired on or about 29th March, 2006.

13. Unfortunately, issuance of the public notices had no impact either on those violating the law or on those expected to implement the rule of law. Perhaps, as observed by this Court, the reason was connivance, corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of the citizens of Delhi - who are today facing the brunt of the decades of illegalities having been committed. C

14. Faced with this situation, in its decision of 24th March, 2006 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India³ this Court observed that the MCD had issued appropriate notices but, to oversee the implementation of the law regarding residential premises used for commercial (nonindustrial) purposes, it would be appropriate to seal offending premises. Therefore, rather than leave any D discretion to the officers of the MCD (for obvious reasons) a Monitoring Committee was appointed consisting of Mr. K.J. Rao, Former Advisor to the Election Commissioner, Mr. Bhure Lal, Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd.) Som Jhingan. All necessary facilities to the members of the Monitoring Committee E were directed to be provided by the MCD including facility of transport, secretarial services, honorarium etc. *** *** ***

p. 756 Copy page pinpoint

A papers. (ii) The order passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2012 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India⁵ to the following effect would continue: “Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring Committee shall not order further sealing of the premises which are under B its scrutiny. We also direct that no construction, temporary or permanent, shall be made on the premises which have been the subject-matter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and no order shall be passed by the Government or any authority regularising such construction or sanction the change of user.”

C 34. It seems to us that the applicants are keen to utilise the premises in question for residential purposes, as stated in their application. There is no apparent intention to utilise the premises in question for commercial purposes or for any purpose not permitted by law. That being the position, it would hardly serve any purpose if the applicants are required to formally file an appeal before the D Appellate Tribunal which is apparently already dealing with a very large number of appeals. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things to de-seal the premises in question for residential purposes subject to certain conditions. Directions E

35. In our opinion, as far as Infinity Knowledge Systems is concerned the following conditions would meet the ends of justice and also provide a safeguard against possible misuse of residential premises for commercial (nonindustrial) purposes:

F (1) The applicants will file an affidavit before the Monitoring Committee stating that they will use the premises in question only for residential purposes and for no other purpose whatsoever. The applicants will identify the persons for whose residential use the premises in question are sought to be desealed. Any change will be notified to the Monitoring G Committee. (2) The affidavit filed by the applicants will state the name, address and other particulars of the person who will be responsible for any misuse of the premises in question, that is,

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 757 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

for use of the premises in question for any purpose other than residential. (3) The person identified as the person responsible in terms of condition No.² above will also file an affidavit clearly stating therein that he or she will ensure that the premises in question are used only for residential purposes and that in the event the premises in question are used for any purpose other than residential, the deponent would be liable for contempt of this Court. (4) The applicants will file with the Monitoring Committee proof of payment of conversion charges to the statutory authority. C (5) The affidavits will be filed before the Monitoring Committee who may impose such other further conditions as may be appropriate.

36. In the event the Monitoring Committee is satisfied that the premises in question ought to be de-sealed, it may require the D concerned statutory authority to de-seal the premises in question. If the Monitoring Committee is not satisfied that the premises in question ought to be desealed, the applicants will be at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate orders. We make it clear that in view of Report No. 46 dated 12th November, 2007 this Order E will not be applicable to all other commercial activities that have been sealed in the premises in question.

37. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessary for any person whose residential premises have been sealed for misuse for any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance of the Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Monitoring Committee which will keep an account of the amounts received by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and approach the Monitoring Committee for relief on the above terms and conditions and on deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as costs with the Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed H

p. 758 Copy page pinpoint

A at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge to the decision of the Monitoring Committee will lie to this Court only. We are constrained and compelled to make this order given the history of the case and the more than serious observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some entities and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism. B

38. We make it clear that this order will inure to the benefit of only those who are using residential premises for commercial purposes (nonindustrial) or for any other non-residential purpose and whose premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. This order will not at all inure for the benefit of anybody C using residential premises for any industrial activity of any sort or nature whatsoever.

39. With regard to the writ petitions that have been transferred to the Delhi High Court which challenge the Act and subsequent legislations, we find from a perusal of the website of the Delhi D High Court that these petitions have not yet been heard, for one reason or another. We do not find any fault with the Delhi High Court. The intention of this Court in transferring the writ petitions to the Delhi High Court was for their expeditious disposal preferably within one year. Almost four years have gone by in this exercise but without any decision. Therefore, given the gravity of the situation as revealed from the Reports of the Monitoring Committee, we think it appropriate that this Court ought to hear the writ petitions on an expeditious basis and, accordingly, withdraw the writ petitions that were transferred to the Delhi High Court to this Court. The Registry will place these writ petitions on receipt from the Delhi High Court for directions on 12th January, 2018.” The order clarifies that the Monitoring Committee was to look into the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes (non- industrial) or any non-residential purpose.

30Copy pinpoint30. There is yet another order dated 24.⁴.2018 passed by this Court, thus: “We have heard learned amicus curiae as well as learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) appearing for the Union of India, learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Maninder Singh) appearing for the DDA and learned counsel for Government of H Delhi and other bodies.

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 759 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Mr. K.C. Naik, Member Secretary and Officiating Chairman A of the Central Ground Water Board is present. He has been requested to give us the status of ground water level in 20 points in Delhi from the year 2000 onwards every five years including for the year 2017/2018 so that we are in a position to understand whether there has been a depletion of ground water and in which area and to what extent. This may be done in the form of a chart as well as in the form of a Plan/graph/map. It has been brought to our notice by learned amicus curiae that an order was passed by this Court on 27th August, 2007 which is quoted in Report No.114 to the effect that construction is being carried out in unauthorized colonies. This has been possible because the building and other bye-laws do not apply to these unauthorized colonies. Consequently, unauthorized colonies are placed in a better position than authorized colonies. It has been recorded by this Court in the order dated 27th August, 2007 that unauthorized colonies cannot be placed in a better position than authorized colonies. In view of this situation, we direct that there should not be any further construction in unauthorized colonies including on public land beyond the existing building and other bye-laws. Consequently, all building and construction activity in the unauthorized colonies including on public land is stopped with immediate effect beyond the existing building and other bye-laws applicable to authorized colonies. The concerned authorities will ensure compliance. It has been submitted by learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) that a Task Force is contemplated that will ensure that the orders of this Court and the applicable bye-laws are implemented and encroachments, etc. as well as unauthorized constructions are removed. The Task Force as suggested by learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Nadkarni) may be constituted with immediate effect. G As a first step, the Task Force should remove encroachments on public roads, public streets and pedestrian streets, as mentioned in the immediate action submitted by Mr. Nadkarni in a Revised Note dated 18th April, 2018. The needful should be done within a period of two weeks from today. H

p. 760 Copy page pinpoint

A We make it clear that the Monitoring Committee may suggest to the Task Force the areas where immediate action is required to be taken. It is stated by learned Additional Solicitor General (Mr. Maninder Singh) that about 27.² acres of public land has been B taken over by the Delhi Development Authority since 1st April,

2018. The details of this have not been mentioned. An affidavit should be filed giving full details of the 27.² acres of public land that has been taken over by the Delhi Development Authority from unauthorized encroachments. C List the matter on 15th May, 2018.” (emphasis supplied)

31Copy pinpoint31. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 24.⁴.2018 for the constitution of the Special Task Force, an Office Memorandum dated 25.⁴.2018 was issued, which was not with respect D to the conferral of powers on the Monitoring Committee, but of the Special Task Force. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24.⁴.2018 given in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (WP (Civil) 4677/1985), the following Action E Plan was submitted in the hearing held on 15.⁵.2018 as intention and commitment to check all ongoing/ future unauthorized constructions, examination of specific complaints of unauthorized constructions in the part and to take action thereon and to weed out malpractices and corruption in the functioning of developmental F and municipal bodies under over the overall supervision and coordination of the Special Task Force (STF) constituted vide OM dated 25-4-2018.

1. Plan of Action to ensure that no further illegal construction/ irregularity takes place in future G i) On the basis of territorial jurisdiction of the statutory authorities/ local bodies like Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal Council, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and East Delhi Municipal Corporation a Grid of officers has been prepared. This Grid would include the names, telephone numbers and emails of the concerned Executive H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 761 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Engineer / Equivalent Officer of respective zones of the various statutory authorities/ local bodies, who shall be held accountable for all future irregular and unauthorized constructions/ violations of the MPD-2021, the DMC Act, 1957 and the Building Bye- Laws. The List of Officers included in the in the Grid is annexed which shall be uploaded on web-site being created separately for information of the general public and will be regularly updated by the concerned statutory authority from time to time, if any one gets transferred or changed.”

32Copy pinpoint32. It is apparent that the Monitoring Committee was authorized to take care of the unauthorized colonies, and the Special Task Force was directed to remove the encroachments from the public roads and public streets. This Court considered Report No.114 and thereby had passed certain orders. Report No.114 of 2018 is related to unauthorized constructions and commercial activities in 1797 unauthorized colonies. Thus, the order of this Court was confined to the unauthorized colonies and commercial activities mentioned in the report as to encroachment on the public land.

33Copy pinpoint33. The order dated 8.⁵.2018 is with respect to the groundwater level, not pertaining to the matter in question. The order dated 15.⁵.2018 is with respect to the Central Government to hear and decide the objections as to Master Plan and the Special Task Force constituted under the DDA Act 1957 was ordered to continue with their duties and responsibilities and action plan submitted by the Attorney General was to be implemented by the Special Task Force, not by the Monitoring Committee.

34Copy pinpoint34. In the order dated 24.⁵.2018, this Court issued the directions to the statutory authorities to take appropriate action. With respect to illegal and unauthorized structures, no direction was issued to the Monitoring Committee. Following observations were made: “14. We may mention that it has been recorded that Delhi is being ravaged by unauthorized encroachments and illegal constructions with impunity and none of the civic authorities including the Delhi Development Authority was sincerely carrying out its statutory duties. It is painful to require the issuance of directions to statutory authorities to carry out their mandatory functions in accordance with the law enacted by Parliament. Unfortunately, the situation H

p. 762 Copy page pinpoint

A in Delhi warranted such a direction due to the apathy of the civic authorities.”

35Copy pinpoint35. This Court considered Report No.127 on 24.8.2018 related to the encroachment on the “public land” with respect to the construction at Burari, Vishwas Nagar (EDMC), Kishangarh, South Zone (SDMC), B the encroachment of DDA land at Karkardooma Metro Station (EDMC) and Bhatti Mines area of SDMC.

36Copy pinpoint36. The order dated 7.9.2018 has also been referred to in which following facts have been noted.: “2. Functioning of the Monitoring Committee C It is stated that the Monitoring Committee is doing its best to comply with the orders passed by this Court and to ensure that there are no encroachments or unauthorized constructions or misuse of property in Delhi, but the Monitoring Committee is not getting adequate support from the executing agencies namely D MCD, NDMC, DDA, and the Police. Therefore, there are existing constraints with the result that the Monitoring Committee has not been able to fully comply with the orders passed by this Court. We request the Monitoring Committee to continue with its onerous task and we expect the statutory bodies (mentioned E above) as well as the Police to render all necessary assistance to the Monitoring Committee in carrying out its task. If there are any specific complaints, these should be brought to the notice of this Court as has been done in the past. Needless to say that any complaint made by the Monitoring F Committee brought to the notice of this Court will be taken up with all due seriousness.” This Court has specifically noted in the aforesaid paragraph that the Monitoring Committee is doing its best to remove the encroachments/ unauthorized constructions or misuse of the property, but that is related G to the encroachments on the public land and unauthorized colonies, and at no point of time this Court has authorized the Monitoring Committee to take action concerning residential premises which were standing on the private land and were not being misused. The aforesaid observations are not with respect to the Committee’s authorization but have to be read in the context of the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee H

M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 763 [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

had been appointed. The power of the Monitoring Committee could not A be said to be widened by the aforesaid observations made in the order. This Court specifically dealt with in several orders the questions relating to power and the purpose for which the Monitoring Committee had been appointed.

37Copy pinpoint37. The learned Amicus invited the attention to the order dated B 12.10.2018, in which this Court simply observed that the Monitoring Committee should carry out its activities and responsibilities. The order is quoted hereunder: “The office report indicates that No Objection Certificate from Shri Ajay Kumar Singh has not yet been obtained. The alleged C contemnor should file the No Objection Certificate in the Registry. The additional affidavit be filed in this regard before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 30th October, 2018. D It is made clear that the pendency of these proceedings should not deter the Monitoring Committee or any other authority from carrying out its activities and responsibilities. The alleged contemnor should remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.” E (emphasis supplied)

38Copy pinpoint38. In the order dated 5.12.2018, the court pointed out with respect to the large number of complaints received by the Special Task Force and removal of encroachments from the public land, thus: “1. Mr. Tarun Kapoor, the Vice Chairman of the DDA and the F Chairman of the Special Task Force (STF) is present in the Court today. The learned ASG, on taking instructions from him, says that while it is correct that regular reports have not been filed in terms of the orders passed by this Court, fortnightly report will henceforth G be filed without fail by the STF. It is further stated that the STF has received a very large number of complaints exceeding 7000 and it has become quite difficult to deal with all these complaints. So far about 3,400 complaints have been dealt with. H