Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1795
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker, P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. No. 1821 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985
Decided On : 07-12-2005
For the Appearing parties :Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate (A.C.)
For the Petitioners:In-person (N/P) Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vipin M. Benjamin, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates
For the N.C.T. of Delhi :- Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. V.B. Saharya, Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, Saharya & Co., Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates
For the M.C.D. :Mr. Sanjeev Sen, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Ms. Sheil Sethi, Mr. M.C. Mehta, Advocates
Government authorities seeking to modify court-mandated relocation plans must provide a detailed chronological account and evidentiary support to justify delays and the necessity of changing the designated relocation site to ensure administrative accountability.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition (Civil) - Compliance with Court directions - Relocation of encroachers from protected environmental zones - Failure of administrative authorities to adhere to time-frames and mandatory reporting requirements. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Administrative Accountability - Seeking modification of previously approved relocation plans - Requirement of detailed chronological justification and supporting documentation when government authorities fail to execute court-mandated timelines. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The court had directed the removal of slum clusters from a protected ridge area by a specified deadline, which was subsequently extended. Despite these orders and the identification of suitable vacant land for relocation, the area remained uncleared for nearly nine years. The administration further failed to comply with directions to file monthly progress reports. Eventually, the government filed an application seeking to modify the original relocation site and move the encroachers to a different industrial area, but did not provide full particulars or a detailed justification for this change in position.
Findings of Court:
The court expressed grave concern over the prolonged delay and the blatant disregard for reporting requirements. It observed that the application to change the relocation site lacked necessary details, such as the specific reasons for the reference to technical bodies and the current status of the proposed land versus the original land. (Paras 2, 3)
Issues: Whether the government can be permitted to deviate from a court-approved relocation plan without providing a comprehensive, chronological explanation for the delay and the specifics necessitating a change in the relocation site.
Ratio Decidendi: In instances where government authorities fail to comply with court-mandated timelines for environmental restoration and relocation, any request to modify the approved plan must be supported by a detailed, date-wise chronological affidavit and supporting documents to ensure accountability and transparency. (Para 3)
Result: Chief Secretary directed to file a detailed affidavit within two weeks; applications listed for January, 2006.
ORDER :
In matters except I.A. No.1207 in I.A. No.22 in W.P. (C) No.4677/1985 :
1. Mr. D.C. Khanduri, Deputy Conservator of Forests-cum- Secretary, Ridge Management Board, filed in this Court, in I.A. No.18 in Writ Petition (C) No.4677 of 1985, an affidavit dated 8th April, 1996, inter alia, stating that the Chief Secretary of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi undertook a visit of Sanjay Nagar, Balbir Nagar and Indira Nagar J.J. Clusters in Bhatti area and Gaon Sabha land at Jaunapur on 6th April, 1996 along with officers of various organisations connected with the shifting of the population. After considering the work involved, ground conditions, topography of the area, weather conditions and various administrative and financial requirements, the time- frame to shift the population as worked-out by the Slum and J.J. Department, was approved by the Chief Secretary as given in Annexure-A, which is a report of the Committee constituted by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi for identification of land for relocation of Jhuggies [slum dwellers] from Jaunapur and Bhatti mines Ridge areas. The report mentions about the feasibility of the land in Jaunapur and the availability of adequate vacant land [about 65 acres of land]. On 9th April, 1996, considering the affidavit and the report as also the time required for the clearing of the ridge area of Bhatti mines, this Court directed that all the encroachment from the area of ridge must be shifted before 31st October, 1996. The court, in the order dated 9th May, 1996, noted the statement of Mr. Khanduri that the work of relocation of J.J. dwellers of Ridge has already been undertaken on war footing. Further, it appears that possession of 61 acres of land was handed over by the Block Development Officer to the Delhi Government on 14th May, 1996. In terms of the order dated 21st November, 1996, the time for shifting was extended up to 31st March, 1997. The Chief Secretary of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and the Chairman of the Ridge Management Board filed an affidavit dated 1st April, 1997 seeking extension of time to complete the process of shifting the J.J. clusters from Southern Ridge up to 31st October, 1997.
2. To say the least, it is a matter of anguish that despite lapse of about nine years and the orders above-referred, the Ridge has not been cleared of J.J. clusters. It does not appear that any order was passed by this court extending the time as sought in the affidavit of the Chief Secretary. Further, it deserves to be noticed that the order dated 21st November, 1996, directed filing of monthly reports. It seems that even that direction has not been complied with. No report has been shown to us. Apart from the affidavit dated 1st April, 1997 of the Chief Secretary, no application has been filed by the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi seeking extension or the change of location, except the affidavit filed for the first time in response to I.A. No.1821. The substantive application (I.A. No.1882) was filed on 14th October, 2004, seeking modification of the order dated 9th May, 1996 and permission to the encroachers to Bawana industrial area.
3. We have perused the affidavit of Mr. A.S. Khullar dated 31st August, 2002 filed in response to I.A. No.1821 as also the averments made in I.A. No.1882. The affidavit and the application hardly contain full particulars and details as to why the Government should be permitted to change its position and allowed to shift to a place other than Jaunapur. In fact, as already noticed, no affidavit or application was filed and the only affidavit filed for the first time after a period of five years was in response to I.A. No.1821. Though the affidavit and the application make a mention of some reference made to NEERI but neither the date of when reference was made nor the reasons for reference nor the report has been filed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit, and rather direct, the Chief Secretary to file a detai
