The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Supreme Court in a specific case binds the respondent in a similar case, and the judgment is based on the facts of the case.

JAYANT NATH, J

1. The present Public Interest Litigation is filed by the petitioner who is said to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus or directions to the respondents to immediately stop all kinds of hazardous activities in the residential areas of Delhi which are in the shape and style of illegal and unauthorized diagnostic centers, medical facilities, path labs, nursing homes and similar kind of other institutions in view of the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. Civil Appeal No.8284/2013 dated 20.03.2015. Based on this judgment, it is averred that action needs to be taken against all entities which are disobeying and violating the orders of the Supreme Court.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents have failed to take any action against the said illegal and unauthorized nursing homes, path labs, diagnostic centers and such other kinds of institutions functioning in the residential areas of Delhi.

3. Reference is made to several complaints to various authorities whereby the petitioner claims to have sought and requested for action against the illegal functioning of nursing homes, path labs, diagnostic centers etc. in the residential areas of Delhi.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The genesis of the petition is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anirudh Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.(supra). We may look at the said judgment. That was a case which was filed by the appellant therein seeking a writ for quashing of the Regularization Certificate issued to the respondents therein who were running a pathological lab from the basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and first floor of a building in a Haus Khas, New Delhi. The pathological lab was started in the year 1995 from the basement and ground floor of the building. In 2005-06 after the purchase of the first floor of the premises by the owner of the path lab, the activities of the lab spread to the mezzanine floor and the first floor. Heavy equipments were installed; about 50 people were employed, 25 air conditioners, two Diesel Generator sets, kerosene oil tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels had been installed.

6. The appellant in that case filed a writ petition in the year 2004 alleging violation of Master Plan of Delhi by the owner of the lab. During the pendency of the writ petition, MCD granted a Regularization Certificate to the lab. Hence, the appellant therein withdrew the writ petition and filed a fresh writ petition where quashing of Regularization Certificate was prayed for. The writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. The appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case held that the grant of Regularization Certificate to the respondents/owners of the path lab under the Mixed Use Regulation of MPD 2021 giving retrospective effect, to run a pathological lab in the guise of a nursing home in a residential area falling in the category “A” and “B”, is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

7. Regarding the issue of breach of various environmental laws, the Supreme Court further held that on the facts of the case and the evidence on record that the respondents/owners were running the pathological lab in the concerned building in violation of the said law. Hence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Regularization Certificate issued to the respondents/owners. The respondents/owners were also directed to close down their establishment.

8. The judgment gives no directions to all the path labs, nursing homes etc. as is sought to be urged.

9. It is clear from the reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court that it is based on the facts of the case. The Supreme Court, in the facts of the ca