SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 652

M. C. Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mukul Rohtagi, Raju Ramachandran, Addl. Solicitor Generals, (NP), Kailash Vasdev, Ranjit Kumar (AC), P. C. Jain (NP), Sr. Advocates, M. C. Mehta, K. L. Mehta, Rakesh K. Khanna, Mrs. Rashmi Khanna, Reetesh Singh, Shashank Shekhar, Surya Kant, Mohd. Arif, M. A. Chinnasamy, K. K. Rohtagi, Praveen Jain, Gopal Jain, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Kirpal Singh, Debasis Mishra, S. Sukumaran, Ms. Divya Nair, K. Rajeev, Manoj Swarup, Anubhav Kumar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Sushil Kumar Jain, Naresh Khanna, P. N. Puri, Harpreet Singh, P. Venugopal, P. S. Sudheer, Vijay Kumar, Atul Sharma, B. K. Sharma, Vishwajit Singh, Vijay Panwani, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, V. B. Saharya, D. N. Goburdhan, R. C. Verma, Manish Shanker, Mrs. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, K. C. Kaushik, T. A. Khan, Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani for D. S. Mehra, S.W. A. Qadri, Mrs. Anil Katiyar (NP), B. V. B. Das (NP), S. N. Terdol (NP), Y. P. Mahajan, T. A. Khan, P. Parmeswaran (NP), Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani for Mrs. Kavita Wadia, Kamalendra Mishra, Mukesh Verma, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Suresh C. Tripathi, Rakesh K. Sharma, and R. S. Suri (NP), Advocate with them, for the Appearing Parties.

Judgement

Y. K. SABHARWAL, J. :- This case about unauthorized industrial activity in Delhi in residential area has a protracted background. The present examination is confined to the issue of industrial activity in residential/non-conforming areas to decide what directions may be issued to put an end to such illegal activity. As a result of orders passed from time to time, hazardous and noxious industries and heavy and large industries (H Category) have been shifted out of Delhi. Some of extensive industries (F category) have also been shifted out of Delhi. As per the State Government, non-polluting F category industries have not been yet shifted. The question is what should be done about continued unauthorized use contrary to Master Plan and Zonal Plan by remaining F category and B to E category (light and service industries) and household industries (A category industries). These industries are continuing in residential/non-conforming areas. Such activity is mostly in residential areas. It is not in dispute that most of continued industrial activity under consideration is in contravention of law except only few household industries which are continuing in residential areas. To dec















































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top