1. Misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes — sealing of premises — challenge to moratorium under Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 10 , 17 , 18 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1200
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
M.C. Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
I.A. NOS. 93010 AND 93007 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4677 OF 1985
Decided On : 15-12-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial or industrial activities should not be allowed in residential areas.
Commercial or industrial activities should not be allowed in residential areas.
Subject
Urban Planning and Development - Unauthorized Constructions and Misuse of Residential Premises
Act Referred
Headnote
Town and country planning – Misuse of residential premises in Delhi for commercial and industrial purposes – Supreme Court constituting monitoring committee – Empowering it to seal premises being misused as per directions – Sealing made as per conditions stipulated – Master plan revised/modified introducing mixed use – Provisions for regularising present user and de-sealing of violator’s premises – Appellate Tribunal constituted – Premises with commercial use allowed to be de-sealed on payment of conversion fee for change of user for the relevant period and an undertaking to use it only for residential purpose – Statutory authorities/Government restrained from regularizing user of premises – Appellants permitted to approach Monitoring committee for de-sealing on depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000 and proof of payment of conversion fee to statutory authorities as also an undertaking that the premises would be used for residential purpose only. (Para 34, 35, 36, 37)
(2004) 6 SCC 588; (2006) 3 SCC 399; (2006) 3 SCC 429; (2006) 6 SCC 305; (2006) 7 SCC 456; (2013) 16 SCC 336; (2012) 11 SCC 759 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This case concerns unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and other commercial purposes in Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
Commercial or industrial activities should not be allowed in residential areas.
Result: Directions issued.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
separation of powers
- judicial functions of legislature (Para 23)
-
separation of powers
- environmental law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Request for de-sealing of premises for residential use — plea for permission to file delayed appeals subject to payment of costs. (Para 32 , 33 )
3. Failure of authorities to implement urban planning laws — connivance between officials and violators — impermissible exercise of judicial functions by the legislature. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 22 , 23 )
4. The legislature cannot extend time granted by a court through law-making power as it constitutes an unauthorized exercise of judicial functions. (Para 23 )
5. Premises de-sealed for residential use subject to conditions — direct relief through Monitoring Committee permitted — writ petitions recalled to Supreme Court. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
6. Can the legislature extend a time limit granted by a court order through a statute?
No. The legislature lacks the competence to extend time granted by the court in the exercise of law-making power, as such an action would be an impermissible exercise of judicial functions. (Para 23 )
7. What is the court's view on the failure of authorities to implement urban planning laws?
The court observed that failure to implement the Master Plan and the rule of law, often due to connivance, corruption, and apathy by officials, leads to total lawlessness and severe environmental and health impacts. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 13 )
8. Under what conditions can premises sealed for commercial misuse be de-sealed for residential use?
Premises may be de-sealed for residential use upon filing affidavits identifying residents and responsible persons, undertaking to prevent further misuse, and providing proof of payment of conversion charges. (Para 35 )
9. What is the procedure for seeking relief for premises sealed by the Monitoring Committee for commercial misuse?
Persons may approach the Monitoring Committee directly for relief after depositing Rs. 1,00,000 as costs, rather than filing an appeal before the statutory Appellate Tribunal. (Para 37 )
JUDGMENT :
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for hundreds of years, but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged by its own citizens and officials governing the capital city – we refer to unauthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on these illegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions from time to time to try and bring some sanity to urban living but to little or no effect. The applications before us, the chronology of events and the historical developments leading up to these applications has given cause to reflect and decide on some of these issues keeping our constitutional obligations in mind.
Decision of 7th May, 2004
2. Way back in the 1990s it was brought to the notice of this Court that a variety of illegal activities were being carried on in the capital city of Delhi with reference to industries established in residential or non-conforming areas as well as misuse of residential premises for other commercial purposes. On an application having been moved, this Court realized that those in authority and power were not at all keen to take steps to remove hazardous and noxious industries and heavy and large industries out of Delhi, prohibit or prevent the continuing illegalities or even otherwise stop the misuse of residential premises for a commercial purpose. Since the attitude of the powers that be raised an issue of mis-governance or non-governance affecting the well-being of the citizens of Delhi, this Court felt that it could no longer be a mute spectator to the whims and fancies of those in power and authority. It was also felt that it would be necessary to direct those in authority and power to implement the law for the sake of the citizens of Delhi. This Court faced a situation where there was little or no support to the rule of law by the concerned officials and today the citizens of Delhi are faced with and are witnessing, among other issues, outrageous levels of pollution in Delhi entirely due to the lack of concern for the rule of law – the citizens of Delhi are paying a heavy price with hopelessly polluted air to breathe and consequent damage to their lungs, respiratory problems and possible damage to the brain of infants and children.
3. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, had already moved this Court with an application to find a remedy for the air pollution in Delhi in a pending writ petition. Although he sought several reliefs, this Court first concentrated on use of residential areas for industrial purposes and later, the misuse of residential premises for other commercial activities. For the present, we are concerned with the misuse of residential premises for other commercial activities. These issues first arose when preliminary orders were passed by this Court on his application on 30th September, 2002 and 19th August, 2003. Thereafter, this Court addressed the issue of residential areas being used for industrial purposes by a judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India . (2004) 6 SCC 588
4. A reading of the judgment and order dated 7th May, 2004 makes it apparent that this Court expected all those concerned with governance of Delhi to adhere to the rule of law and ensure its implementation. Unfortunately, this Court was anguished by events that demonstrated that the trust reposed was belied in terms of action for implementation of the law and that industrial activity continued in areas despite the Master Plan for Delhi, meaning thereby that impermissible industrial activity continued in residential areas in Delhi.
5. This Court also noted that no dispute was raised by the Government of India or the Delhi Government or by any statutory authority that unauthorised and illegal industrial activity had commenced and continued in Delhi in blatant breach of the provisions of the Master Plan and no action, or ineffective action, had been taken by the c
