Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, Mr. C.K. Thakker and Mr. P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
I.A. No. 22 in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 4677 of 1985.
Decided On : 23-7-2007
For the Appearing Parties :- Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate (A.C.) (N/P), Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Advocate (A.C.).
For the Petitioners:- Mr. M.C. Mehta, In-person (N/P)
For the Respondent(s)/ Union of India:- Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, Solicitor General, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, A.S.G., Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Mr. T.A. Khan, Mr. V.K. Verma, Advocates.
For the Delhi Police :- Mr. A. Sharan, ASG, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Ms. Kira n Bhardwaj, Mr. M. P. S. Tomar, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the M.C.D. :- Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Mr. Pr aveen Swarup, Mr. Subhas h Bansal, Advocates.
For the D.D.A :- Mr. A. Sharan, A.S.G., Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, M/s. Saharya & Co., Advocates.
For the MoEF :- Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Advocate, Mrs. Varun a Bhanda ri Gugnani, Mr. D.S.Mahra, Mr. T.S. Doabia, Sr.Advocate, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. MP S Tomar, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the MoUB/DPCC/DSIDC :- Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocates.
For the NCT of Delhi & DSIDC :- Ms. Pin ky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Yashr aj Singh Deora, M/s. K. L. Mehta & Co., Advocates.
For the NDMC :- Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr.Advocate, Mrs. Rashmi Khanna, Ms. Jhanvi Woraha, Ms. Shelja Sinha, Mr. Surya Kant, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr.Advocate, Mr. R. K. Gupta, Mr. Rajeev Dubey, Mr. Ramesh N. Keshwani, Advocates.
For the NCRPB :- Ms. Sheil Sethi, Mr. Somvir Singh Deswal, Mr. Shree Pal Singh, Mr. M.L. Verma, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. Mahendra Rana, Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mr. Mahendra Rana, Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Mr. J asbi r Singh Malik, Mr. D.K. Sharma, Mr. S.K. Sabharwal, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Advocate, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Anamika Ghai, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Pravin Bahadhur, Ms. Meghalee Barthakur, Mr. Rajan Narain, Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Mr. Sandeep Narain, S. Narai n & Co., Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr.Advocate, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Mr. Anupam Mishra, Mr. Jayesh K.U., Ms. Deepti, Mr. P.I. Jose, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Arun Jaitley Sr.Advocate, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. E. R. Kumar, Mr. Sumit Goel, Mr. Nitin Thukral, M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co., Mr. Uday U. Lalit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Mr. Ranjay Kumar, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Saif Mahmood, Ms. Hina Rizvi, Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Ms. Vandana Sehgal, Mr. Rohan Thawani, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Mr. Ravi P. Wadhwani, Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Anupama Sharma, Mr. Ajay Singh, Mr. Anil K. Chopra, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Airi, Mr. Ghanshyam, Mr. Devendra Singh, Mr. Dipak Kumar Jena, Ms. Minaxi Jena, Mr. Ambar Jain, Mr. Sanjay Kapur, Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, Ms. Suruchi Agarwal, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. Anupama Sharma, Sri Ajit Singh, Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Mr. Abhinav Mukherjee, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mohit Paul, Mr. Arijit Prasad, Mr. Anip Sachthey, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sunil Mathews, Mr. Santhanam Swamnathan, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sunil Mathews, Mr. Ran a Mukherjee, Mr. Sourabh Kirpal, Mr. Santhanam Swaminathan, Mr. T. Anil Kumar, Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Mr. Sunil Mathews, Mr. Santhanam Swaminathan, Mr. R. P . Singh, Mr. Arun Kaushal, Mr. Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Ms. Vinita G. Upadhyay, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Mr. Syed Ali Ahmed, Mr. Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Mr. J. P . Tripathi, Ms. Asha Upadhyay, Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, Mr. R.M. Sinha, Mr. Rakes h Singh, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Mr. B.S. Jain, Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Dr. Charu Wali Khanna, Dr (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Mr. Puneet Agarwal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. Tripurari Ray, Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Mr. Siddharth Chowdhary, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Ms. K.V. Bharthi Upadhyay, In- person, Mr. Nafis Ahmed Siddiqui, Mr. D.K. Sharma, Mr. R. K. Kapoor, Mr. M.K. Verma, Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, Mrs. Gauri Karuna Das, Ms. Bhakti Pasrija, Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Mr. P. Narsimhan, Mr. M. C. Dhingra, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Mrs. Sharmila Upadhyay, Mr. Manjit Singh, Mr. T.V. Geroge, Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Mr. Randhir Singh, Mr. Arvind Minocha, Mr. Ashish Mahajan, Mr. Devinder Hora, Mr. S.K. Dubey, Mr. P.H. Parekh, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Mr. C.D. Singh, Ms. Meera Bhatia, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Mr. Shankar Divate, Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Mrs. Poonam Lahoty, Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Mr. Prakash Kumar Singh, Mr. Sandeep Bhalla, Mr. A.S. Bhasme, Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Mr. P. K . Manohar, Mr. A.S. Mittal, Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Mr. Omesh Saigal, Mr. R.C. Kaushik, Mr. Devinder Singh, Mr. L.R. Singh, Mr. P. Narsimhan, Advocates.
Agencies must comply with filing responses, and the court considers parameters from previous decisions regarding non-residential buildings for public utility services.
Headnote:
Monitoring Committee - Master Plan 2021 - [No.38, No.3, No.8, No.11, No.14, No.7, No.4, No.37-38, 2004 (9) SCC 569] - The court discussed various aspects of the feasibility of the Master Plan 2021, including the response of agencies, sealing of unauthorized constructions, and the impact of stay orders on demolition. The court emphasized the need for agencies to file their responses and considered the parameters set in previous decisions regarding non-residential buildings for public utility services.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed the feasibility of implementing the Master Plan 2021 and the sealing of unauthorized constructions.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed agencies to file their responses, extended deadlines, and emphasized the impact of stay orders on demolition.
Issues: Feasibility of Master Plan 2021 implementation, sealing of unauthorized constructions, impact of stay orders on demolition.
Ratio Decidendi: Agencies must file responses, deadlines may be extended, and parameters from previous decisions regarding non-residential buildings for public utility services must be considered.
Final Decision: The court directed agencies to file responses, extended deadlines, and emphasized the impact of stay orders on demolition.
ORDER
1. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
I.A. No. 22
2. By our order dated 07.05.2007, pursuant to what has been submitted by learned Solicitor General and learned Amicus- Curiae, several agencies were required to indicate their stand on various aspects relating to the feasibility of the Master Plan 2021 being implemented effectively. It appears that except the Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transport System (in short 'DIMT S') and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (in short 'DMRC'), no other agency has filed any affidavit indicating its stand. Without having the affidavits of these agencies, it may not be possible to work out the details so far as the feasibility of an effective implementation of the Master Plan 2021 is concerned. As a last chance, two weeks' time is granted to the agencies who have not filed their response, to file their response. It is made clear that adverse inference shall be drawn if the affidavits are not placed on record within the aforesaid time. Copies of the affidavits filed be supplied to learned Solicitor General and learned Amicus- Curiae.
3. Copy of the Report of the Monitoring Committee (Report No.38) dated 21st July, 2007) be given to learned counsel for the MCD to respond to what has been stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the report.
4. We have perused the report of the Monitoring Committee so far as demand of reasons for sealing are concerned. It is stated by learned AC that the reasons are available in the files and photocopies can be made available by the MCD. We direct accordingly. So far as paragraph- 4 of the report is concerned, let MCD and DDA file their response.
5. I.A. No.2138 shall be placed on board when this aspect is taken up. Considered the suggestions of the Monitoring Committee. Time for meeting the deadline under the Notification dated 22nd June, 2007 is extended till 16th August, 2007.
I.A. Nos. 2111, 2112, 2113 AND 2114
6. Several petitions have been filed by the Professional s. The Monitoring Committee has indicated its views in paragraph- 7 of the report. Let response of the applicants be filed within two weeks. Copy of Report No.3 8 be given to learned Solicitor General. The interim order in respect of the professional s shall continue until further orders.
7. The order in the case of professional s shall apply to W P(C) No.338 of 2007 also. The response of the MCD and the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the views expressed in Report No.38 in paragraph- 8 relating to classification of roads shall be filed within two weeks.
8. In paragraph- 11 of the report, it has been stated that because of stay orders passed by various courts, the work of demolition of unauthorized construction is stalled. Reference in this context is made to a letter of the Executive Engineer, P W D , Division No.N- 11 2 , Government of Delhi, dated 4th May, 2007 . Learned counsel for the MCD/D D A/ N C T shall bring to the notice of the concerned courts that the interim applications are to be disposed of within a period of six weeks from today. Necessary information be given to the court within a period of one week so that the parties concerned can be informed about this order.
9. So far as the recommend actions contained in paragraph- 14 are concerned, let the Union of India file its response. The response to be filed shall be considered along with the response to be filed by various agencies, as directed earlier.
I.A. NO.1 5- A
Let DDA's response be filed within three weeks.
I.A. Nos.2001 and 2043
10. Latest position so far as I.A. Nos. 2001 and 2043 are concerned, shall be indicated within three weeks.
I.A. Nos.2031 - 2032 and 2051- 2052
Call after three weeks.
Rejoinder, if any, to the response be filed within three weeks.
I.A. Nos.2057 - 2058, 2061- 2062, 2066, 2087, 2070- 2071, 2082, 2091, 2080 - 2081, 2098- 2096, 2097, 2092- 2093, 2094- 2095
11. In these I.As., the DDA prayed for some time to file its response. Let the response be filed within a period of two weeks.
I.A. Nos. 2096 – 2097
12.
