ORDER

Rajendra Babu, J.-On 11.12.2001, this Court made an order as follows :

"I.A. has been filed. It has been taken on board and the same be numbered.

Learned Amicus Curiae draws our attention to the notification dated 7th June, 2000, wherein it was inter alia stated that the plans would be sanctioned only after arrangements for provision of augmentation of municipal services have been made. He then contends that now a press note has been issued on 27th November, 2001 which purports to supercede the said notification and permits construction of additional floor without first augmenting the civic infrastructure. The press note indicates that it is only after money is generated by granting permission to construct additional floor that there will be augmentation of civic infrastructure. The learned Amicus Curiae submits that this is not only contrary to the notification of 7th June, 2000, but town planning also requires the civic infrastructure being in place before building is allowed to be constructed.

Issue notice to the M.C.D., N.D.M.C., Delhi Administration as well as the Union of India. Stay of implementation of the press note dated 27th November, 2001 in the meanwhile."

2. In I.A. No. 24, the Amicus Curiae sought for a direction to stay construction activities being carried on pursuant to the Press Note issued by the Ministry of Urban Development dated 27.11.2001 and direct the enforcement of the Notification dated 7.6.2000. In I.A.No. 25, the Union of India have sought for vacation or modification of the order dated 11.12.2001. I.A.No. 28 is filed by two applicants residing in Hauz Khas, New Delhi, not only for intervention but also seeking modification of the order made on 11.12.2001 to the effect that the building plans can be sanctioned in accordance with the Building Bye-laws, 1983, as amended by the Notification dated 23.7.1998 provided the number of dwelling units are not increased beyond what was permitted prior to 23.7.1998. Another applicant in Panchsheel Enclave has sought for a similar relief in I.A.No.29.

3. The learned Solicitor General, who appeared for Union of India, pointed out that by letter dated 27.11.2001 adverting to a letter from the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi sent on 22.11.2001 regarding sanctioning and regularizing of building plans pursuant to the Notification of the Ministry of Urban Development dated 7.6.2000, it was stated as follows:

"2. The matter relating to sanction of building plans as per FAR permissible in July 23, 1998 Notification of Ministry of Urban Development has been considered. It is clarified that subject to the applicant s Undertaking that no additional dwelling unit will be created, building plan may be sanctioned taking into account the increased FAR and the number of floors permitted in the 1998 Notification without any other and further recommendation. This is consistent with the spirit of July 23, 1998 and June 7, 2000 Notifications as these would not pose a stress on the services, as long as additional dwelling units are not permitted.

3. It is clarified that the June 7, 2000 Notification does not contain any restriction on the sanctioning of building plans/FAR permitted by the 1998 Notification though it stipulates the necessity of upgradation of infrastructure and services. Therefore, sanction of increased FAR and floors as per July 23, 1998 Notification can be considered subject to the condition that the number of dwelling units are not increased beyond what is permitted as per the 1998 Notification.

4. As already indicated in earlier communication of even number dated 25.9.1998 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi should collect the levy on increased FAR and deposit it in a separate escrow account. The amount that has already been collected on this account and further to be deposited shall be utilized exclusively for upgradation of civic infrastructure services. A report indicating the funds received and extent of augmentation word taken up should be sent t