SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI., D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Jaghbir Singh & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secy., Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
Conmt. Petition (C)No. 222 of 2012 In Writ Petition(C) No. 4677 of 1985
Decided On : 10-07-2017
JUDGMENT
Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI.
The fact of there being large scale unauthorised industrial activities in Delhi, in residential areas, prompted this Court to entertain a number of writ petitions filed in public interest. The first final order, in this behalf, came to be filed in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and others, (2004) 6 SCC 588. The operative part of the order passed by this Court is extracted hereunder:
"69. In conclusion, having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the following directions:
1. All industrial units that have come up in residential/non-conforming areas in Delhi on or after 1-8-1990 shall close down and stop operating as per the following schedule:
(a) Industrial units pertaining to extensive industries (`F' category) - within a period of four months.
(b) Industrial units pertaining to light and service industries (Categories `B' to `F') - within five months.
(c) Impermissible household industries (Category `A') - within six months.
(d) 6000 industrial units on waiting list for allotment of industrial plots - within 18 months.
2. The Central Government is directed to finalise the list of permissible household industries falling in Category `A' within a period of three months.
3. 6000 industrial units on waiting list shall be allotted industrial plots within one year.
4. The Delhi Government may announce a policy within six weeks giving such incentives as it may deem fit and proper to those industrial units which came to be established after 1-8-1990 and may close down on their own before the expiry of the time fixed in this order. The non-announcement of incentives by the Government shall not, however, delay the closure process.
5. The water and electricity connection of the industrial units found operating after the due date of closure shall be disconnected forthwith and in any case not later than a month of the date fixed for closure in Direction 1 above. If the industrial activity still continues, the premises shall be sealed within a period of not later than another one month. The seal shall be removed and water and electricity connection restored only after filing of an undertaking by the industrial unit not to recommence any sort of industrial activity before an officer nominated for the purpose by the Delhi State.
6. The Central Government is directed to finalise within six months appropriate steps to be taken for making NCR region a success for industrial activity by removing the hurdles pointed out by the industry. The Governments of the adjoining States of U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana are directed to extend full cooperation.
7. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall consider within three months the aspect of withdrawal of exemption notification as suggested in the affidavit of its town planner filed on 28-10-2002.
8. We appoint 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 the Delhi Development Authority. 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 with the directions contained in the judgment.
9. The first progress report by the Committee shall be filed by 31-8-2004 and thereafter it shall be filed, at least once in a period of every two months."
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 588 – Relied upon [Para 1]
2. A perusal of the above order reveals, that this Court passed the above closure order, by categorising industries into various groups. The Delhi Government was directed to announce a policy within six weeks for giving incentives, as it may consider appropriate, to those industrial units which were set up after 01-08-1990, and were closed down, on their own, before the expiry of the period depicted in paragraph 69 (extracted above). Such of the industries, as were found
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.