2006 Supreme(SC) 926

2006(7) Supreme 508
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker and R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
M.C. Mehta—Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors.—Respondents
I.A. No. 1970 In I.A. No. 22
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985
With
W.P. (C) Nos. 263, 264, 266, 450, 464 & 470 of 2006, I.A. Nos. 3-6, 8-12, 15-16, 18-22 in W.P. (C) No. 263 of 2006, I.A. No. 17 in I.A. Nos. 5-6 in W.P. (C) No. 263 of 2006 And I.A. Nos. 1926-27, 1928-29, 1948, 1949, 1961, 1969, 1971-72, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977-78 & 1973 In I.A. 22 in W.P. (C)
No. 4677 of 1985
Decided on 29-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., A. Sharan, A.S.G., Ajay Siwach, A.A.G., Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate (A.C.), R.F. Nariman, Mukul Rohtagi, Jagdeep Dhanker, Vijay Hansaria, Arun Jaitley, Mrs. Indir Jaisingh, Sr. Advocates, Mahendra Rana, Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill Indeevar, Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Rajat Navet, Madhur Yadav, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Aman Hingorani, Ms. Priya Hingorani (for M/s. Hingorani Associates), Ms. Shobha, Ashok Kr. Mahajan, Maninder Singh, Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Kirtiman Singh, Abhinav Mukherjee, Ms. S. Janani, Deepak Goel, A.S. Bhasme, Varun Thakur, Sanjay Goswami, Devadatt Kamat, Mrs. Sandhya Goswami, Ashok Bhan, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, R.c. Khatiya, Anil Katiyar, V.K. Verma, Mrs. Sheel Sethi, Pradeep Dahiya, Sandeep Sharma, M.C. Mehta, T.V. George, Vijay Panjwani, Sanjiv Sen, Praveen Swarup, V.B. Saharya (for M/s. Saharya & Co.), Jasbir Singh Malik, S.K. Sabharwal, Mustaq Ahmad, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Amrita Swarup Pratap Vegugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, E. Venu Kumar (for M/s. K.J. John & Co.), Somvir Singh Deswal, Shree Pal Singh, S.K. Bhattacharya, Arun Kumar Beriwal, Kunal Verma, Arjun Garg, B.V.B. Das, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, S.W.A. Qadri, D.S. Mahra, Anoop Bambani, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocates.
For the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 264/2006 : In-Person (S. Prakash).
For the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 464/2006 : In-Person (Amar Singh).
For the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 470/2006 : In-Person (Umesh Sehgal).
For the Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 263/2006 : In-Person (Anil Aggarwal).

Headnote:Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006—Section 5—Commercial use of residential premises—Powers of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to seal premises in case of misuser—On 28-3-2006, a Notification was issued by DDA modifying Master Plan insofar as the chapter on mixed use was concerned—On 12-5-2006, Delhi Laws Act was passed—On 20-5-2006, Government of India issued a Notification placing a moratorium for a period of one year in respect of all notices issued by local authorities in respect of categories of unauthorized development—Writ petitions filed to declare the Act unconstitutional—DDA recommended amendment of the Master Plan on 5-9-2006 which was accepted—On 7-9-2006 and on 15-9-2006 about 2002 patches/streets were notified for mixed use—Constitutional validity of the Notification dated 7-9-2006 is under challenge—Pending determination thereof, directions issued by the Court regarding premises relating to which undertakings were given; regarding small shops in residential areas which are allowed trading; other premises for which protection is extended by Notification; premises for which protection is not extended by the Notification—Petitions disposed of accordingly —Matter listed in the month of November 2006 for further directions.

       Held : There cannot be any doubt that the Legislature would lack competence to extend the time granted by this Court in the purported exercise of law making power. That would be virtually exercising judicial functions. Such functions do not vest in the Legislature. In fact, those who gave undertakings are already in breach of the undertakings by not stopping misuser by 30th June, 2006. The dignity and authority of the Court has to be protected not for any individual but for maintenance of the rule of law. The fact that those who gave undertakings may have been misled in view of subsequent developments can only be a mitigating factor while considering the action to be taken for breach of the undertakings. Further, there are no equities in favour of those who gave undertakings to this Court and obtained the benefit of time otherwise their premises could have been sealed on 29th March, 2006 or soon thereafter. The nature of trade conducted by most of them who gave undertakings has been noted above. There is serious challenge to the validity of the Act and the Notification. Pending determination thereof, such persons cannot be allowed to claim any benefit of the Notification. In the background of the above facts and having considered the submissions made, we issue the following directions:

       (i)Re : Premises relating to which undertakings were given

       The commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31st October, 2006.

       (ii)Re : Small Shops

       Small Shops, i.e., measuring not more than 20 sq. mts. in residential areas are allowed trading in the following items :

       i.Vegetables/fruits/flowers;

       ii.Bakery items/confectionary items;

       iii.Kirana/General stores;

       iv.Dairy products;

       v.Stationery/Books/Gifts/Book binding;

       vi.Photostat/Fax/STD/PCO;

       vii.Cyber cafi/Call phone booths;

       viii.LPG Booking office/Show room without LPG cylinders;

       ix.Atta chakki;

       x.Meat/Poultry and Fish shop;

       xi.Pan shop;

       xii.Barber shop/Hair dressing saloon/Beauty Parlour;

       xiii.Laundry/Dry cleaning/ironing;

       xiv.Sweet shops/Tea stall without sitting arrangements;

       xv.Chemist shops;

       xvi.Optical shops;

       xvii.Tailoring shops;

       xviii.Electrical/Electronic repair shop; and

       xix.Photo studio

       xx.Cable TV/DTH Operations

       xxi.Hosiery/Readymade Garments/Cloth shops

       xxii.ATM

       (iii)Re : Other premises for which protection is extended by Notification dt. 7.9.2006

       Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by the Notification dated 7th September, 2006 read with 15th September, 2006, we direct that the said premises may not be sealed pending decision of these petitions on undertakings being filed before the Monitoring Committee on or before 10th November, 2006 that misuser shall be stopped as per the directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated and/or the Notification is quashed.(Paras 21 and 22)

       In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006, the sealing process will continue in terms of the Order dated 16th February, 2006 and 10th August, 2006. The direction of sealing premises will also apply to specific properties mentioned in the judgment dated 16th February, 2006 and in the Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th September, 2006. The sealing would be done in a systemic manner as per directions of Monitoring Committee and not in a haphazard manner. There shall be no misuser of public land or public street. The authorities shall ensure that the Roads, Public Streets and pathways meant for public is kept free for their use and the commercial activity is not extended thereupon. The commercial user in contravention of judgment in M.C. Mehtas case (supra), order dated 10th August, 2006 and Notifications dated 7th September, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 subject to what is stated in this order shall be liable to be sealed.(Para 22)

       (a) We direct that the owner/occupier of small shops and also others who have been permitted to continue and not stop commercial activity for the present, under this order shall get themselves registered upto 31st December, 2006. (b) In respect of the premises which have been sealed under the orders of this Court, we permit them to approach the Monitoring Committee which will consider each case on its merit and make appropriate report to this Court on consideration whereof necessary directions may be issued.(Para 22(v))