ORDER

1. Considering the large - scale violation of various laws, this Court by judgment dated 16 - 2 - 2006 in M.C Mehta v. Union of India1 issued various directions for taking immediate steps to seal residential premises being f misused for commercial activities. A Monitoring Committee was constituted to ensure compliance with law and directions of this Court. The judgment, by way of illustration, highlighted various illegal and unauthorised users in many colonies despite the orders and directions made from time to time. After the judgment, in terms of directions contained therein, the sealing of the premises commenced. This led to some of the applicants filing applications in this Court seeking time to stop the misuser on giving 9 undertaking that the applicants on their own would stop the same by 30 - 6 - 2006.

2. According to the report of the Monitoring Committee, 40,814 affidavits were filed stating therein that the misuser would be stopped by 30 - 6 - 2006. Further, 5006 commercial establishments were sealed by the time the impugned legislation was enacted. In terms of the order dated 1 - 8 - 2006 we have admitted the petitions and issued rule observing that serious challenge had been laid to the constitutional validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Act, 2006.

3. We have heard the learned Solicitor General, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel as amicus and other counsel and Mr. Satya Prakash in person on the issue of grant of stay.

4. Mr. Jasbir Malik, learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, challenging the validity of the Act, contends that it is a unique statute which overrules, annuls and sets aside the decision of this Court dated 16 - 2 - 20061 and other orders passed thereafter in implementation of the directions contained in the main judgment dated 16 - 2 - 20061. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to para 24 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India to demonstrate how the government authorities, in particular the Delhi Development Authority, were responsible for the mess that has been created. Para 24 shows that as per the norms under the Master Plan, 1962, 75 district centres should have come up against which only 9 were established, as against 300 community centres only 35 came up. Likewise, as against 1250 local shopping centres under the norms of Master Plan, 1962, 135 such centres were established and 435 convenient shopping centres were established as against 3000 which should have been set up. In the same context, learned counsel appearing for Mr. P.K. Dave, former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, drew our attention to the notification dated 20 - 5 - 2006 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development in exercise of power under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act directing in effect the local authority to de - seal the premises which have been sealed as directed by this Court and permitting those who had given undertaking to continue unauthorised misuser beyond 30 - 6 - 2006. Directions 1 and 2 of the notification dated 20 - 52006 read as under:

"(1) The premises sealed by any local authority in pursuance of a judgment, order or decree of any court after 1 - 1 - 2006 shall be eligible to be restored, for a period of one year, with effect from 19 - 5 - 2006 to the position as was obtaining as on 1 - 1 - 2006.

(2) All commercial establishments which are required to cease carrying out commercial activities at their premises by 30 - 6 - 2006, may continue such activities at such premises, as they were being carried out on 1 - 1 - 2006 for a period of one year, with effect from 19 - 5 - 2006."

5. It is vehemently contended that no law can permit or ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the directions of a court. The contention is that the aforesaid two directions have the effect of overruling the directions of this Court and asking the authorities to act contrary thereto.

6. Having heard the learned counsel and examined the various facet