JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J. - Introduction

1.1 These are four petitions which highlight the chaos resulting partly from the inadequate provisions, and partly the improper implementation, of the Master Plans for Delhi ("MPD"), both for 2001 and 2021. The particular focus in these petitions is on the "mixed use regulations" forming part of the MPD.

1.2 A common sight in many of Delhi''s residential colonies these days is one of congestion and the ubiquitous lack of "parking space" for vehicles of not just residents but also visitors. Increasingly, there is a gradual transformation of living spaces into commercial ones. What, to begin with, was a two-storied residential house now has a business operating on either or both floors. This inevitably increases the strain on the already stretched infrastructure and resources. Since the rapidity of these changes was not anticipated by the MPD, the assumptions that formed its basis appear in practice to have been underestimated.

1.3 The adverse effects of the above changes on the resident population of one such "up-scale" Delhi colony, Greater Kailash-I ("GK-I") drove Mr. P. V. Kapur, a Senior Advocate of this Court and a resident of GK-I, to file the first of these four petitions as a Public Interest Litigation ("PIL") nearly fourteen years ago, hoping that this Court would be able to help find a solution to the abovesaid problem. The immediate concern that prompted the PIL was the mushrooming presence of Banks operating branches from residential houses in the immediate neighbourhood. With the passage of time, of the twelve Banks operating in the area, six still remain: HDFC Bank, HSBC Bank, Andhra Bank, ICICI Bank, J & K Bank and the Standard Chartered Bank ("SCB").

1.4 The other three petitions, two by SCB and one by a landlord of one of the properties from where the HSBC Bank operates, although not PILs, have sprung from the relief sought in the first petition and concerns the subject matter of the first petition.

1.5 As a High Court, we can interpret the MPD, which is a legislative document that derives legal sanctity from the DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT , 1957 ("DD Act"). We could also examine if particular provisions of the MPD, because of their legal character, pass legal muster. However, as a High Court, we cannot rewrite those provisions. The scope of judicial review of the DDA to allow mixed land use in certain areas is arguably narrow. Judges should not assume the role of urban planners.

1.6 What the Court proposes to do in the judgment that follows, in the above background, is to require the South Delhi Municipal Corporation ("South DMC") to review the permissions granted to the landlords of the residential premises that were leased out to the aforementioned three Banks to operate branches. The data on the impact their operations have on the traffic in the area is part of the case record. The problem of random parking and the resultant congestion on the Hansraj Gupta Marg in GK-I during the working hours of these Banks persists despite the Court issuing periodic directions for strict enforcement of the MPD provisions and the monitoring of their implementation. This then by itself constitutes sufficient justification for ordering a comprehensive review of the permissions granted. It calls for a gradual phasing out of such commercial activity.

Mr. Kapur''s petition

2. Mr. Kapur resides in his own house on Hansraj Gupta Marg, GK-I. He has l