The appointment of Court Commissioners as a continuous check against public officials cannot be permanent.

.1. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed two applications being CM Nos.1238/2007 and 239/2007 praying for the discharge of the Monitoring Committee and Court Commissioners appointed by this Court vide its orders dated 23rd March and 18th May, 2006.

2. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, the learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the MCD, has challenged the appointment of the Monitoring Committee and the powers vested with the Monitoring Committee and the Court Commissioners on the ground that the said orders impinge on the doctrine of separation of powers as well as violate the doctrine of judicial restraint and the powers vested with the Commissioners and Monitoring Committee are far in excess of the relevant statutory provision namely Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC.

.3. The submissions of Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad are summarized as follows:- A. In the course of the execution and implementation of the directions of the Court, on many occasions, disputed questions arise as to the legality of the construction or the legality of an activity. This can be decided, by either those who are statutorily empowered to take such decisions or by this Court. For the latter purpose, unquestionably the court has the power to appoint a Commissioner to give its recommendations on which a decision is taken by this Court after hearing all affected parties. The judicial power to decide disputed questions cannot be as a matter of law, be delegated to the court commissioner. There have been large numbers of occasions where disputed issues have been sought to be resolved by the committee. B. A part of the order dated 18th May, 2006 constituted a Monitoring Committee and further directed the statutory authorities like the Commissioner of MCD, Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Vice Chairman of the DDA, the Divisional Commissioner of Delhi, Chief Conservator of Forest and the Ridge Management Board to report to this Committee, which is contrary to law. By this Courts order dated 18th May, 2006, the Monitoring Committee was vested with the power to issue appropriate directions to the authorities concerned. Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad submitted that the statutory authorities have to function in accordance with the statute that governs their functioning. The statute ensures their independence. If they fail to exercise the discretion in accordance with the law and or act contrary to law, the appropriate writ, order or direction can always be issued to statutory authorities. However, requiring statutory authorities to report to a Committee set up by the Court which has no statutory backing or authority, it was submitted, is contrary to law and against the Constitution. C. The order dated 18th May, 2006 also directed that the Monitoring Committee evaluate the amount of penalty, which should be recovered. It was submitted that if there is unauthorized construction or encroachment, apart from taking action to prevent such activity if a penalty is to be levied it can only be in accordance with a law that authorizes the imposition of penalty. There are penalties prescribed under the statute and the rules but those have to be enforced after judicial adjudication by the appropriate court. D. By order dated 23rd March, 2006, this Court appointed Court Commissioners giving direction to the Commissioner of MCD to take immediate action on the receipt of the report of the court commissioners and further giving an authority to the court commissioners to directly inform the Commissioner of Police. It was, thus, submitted that what has been put in place by these orders is virtually a parallel administration. E. It was further submitted that the directions in these orders are not authorized by the law and the Constitution but are also contrary to the express provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Statute sets up machinery for implementation of its provision