1. Considering the large scale violation of various laws, this Court by judgment dated 16-2-2006 in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006 (3) SCC 399 [LQ/SC/2006/126] ) issued various directions for taking immediate steps to seal residential premises being misused for commercial activities. A Monitoring Committee was constituted to ensure compliance with law and directions of this Court. The judgment, by way of illustration, highlighted various illegal and unauthorised users in many colonies despite the orders and directions made from time to time. After the judgment, in terms of directions contained therein, the sealing of the premises commenced. This led to some of the applicants filing applications in this Court seeking time to stop the misuser on giving undertaking that the applicants on their own would stop the same by 30-6-2006.
2. According to the report of the Monitoring Committee, 40,814 affidavits were filed stating therein that the misuser would be stopped by 30-6-2006. Further, 5006 commercial establishments were sealed by the time the impugned legislation was enacted. In terms of the order dated 1-8-2006 we have admitted the petitions and issued rule observing that serious challenge had been laid to the constitutional validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Act, 2006.
3. We have heard the learned Solicitor General, Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel as amicus and other counsel and Mr Satya Prakash in person on the issue of grant of stay.
4. Mr JasbirMalik, learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, challenging the validity of the, contends that it is a unique statute which overrules, annuls and sets aside the decision of this Court dated 16-2-2006 and other orders passed thereafter in implementation of the directions contained in the main judgment dated 16-2-2006 (2006 (3) SCC 399). Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to para 24 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India to demonstrate how the government authorities, in particular the Delhi Development Authority, were responsible for the mess that has been created. Para 24 shows that as per the norms under the Master Plan, 1962, 75 district centres should have come up against which only 9 were established, as against 300 community centres only 35 came up. Likewise, as against 1250 local shopping centres under the norms of Master Plan, 1962, 135 such centres were established and 435 convenient shopping centres were established as against 3000 which should have been set up. In the same context, learned counsel appearing for Mr P. K. Dave, former Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, drew our attention to the notification dated 20-5-2006 issued by the Ministry of Urban Development in exercise of power under S.3 and 5 of the directing in effect the local authority to deseal the premises which have been sealed as directed by this Court and permitting those who had given undertaking to continue unauthorised misuser beyond 30-6-2006. Directions 1 and 2 of the notification dated 20-5-2006 read as under:
5. It is vehemently contended that no law can permit or ask the instrumentalities of the State to disobey or disregard the directions of a court. The contention is that the aforesaid two directions have the effect of overruling the directions of this Court and asking the authorities to act contrary thereto."(1) The premises sealed by any local authority in pursuance of a judgment, order or decree of any court after 1-1-2006 shall be eligible to be restored, for a period of one year, with effect from 19-5-2006 to the position as was obtaining as on 1-1-2006.
(2) All commercial establishments which are required to cease carrying out commercial activities at their premises by 30-6-2006, may continue such activities at such premises, as they were being carried out on 1-1-2006 for a period of one year, with effect from 19-5-2006."
6. Having heard the learned counsel and examined the various facets of the problem, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant a complete stay of the impugned legislation though, prima facie, agreeing with the counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that it is a unique statute. We are, however, of the view that partial stay deserves to be granted. Directions 1 and 2, as above reproduced, deserve to be stayed since these directions amount to overruling the orders and directions issued by this Court and acts consequent thereupon. This order of stay will mean that the properties which were sealed under the directions of this Court (5006 as per the report of the Monitoring Committee) shall have to be resealed. It will also mean revival of the undertakings given to cease the misuser by 30-6-2006. Directions will have to be issued to them to now comply with the undertakings despite the fact that the time to comply stood expired on 30-6-2006 but it is evident that they did not, in all probability, stop misuser by 30-6-2006 in view of the impugned law and the notice dated 20-5-2006.
7. Having considered the report of the Monitoring Committee, we extend the time to comply with the undertakings given in respect of 40,814 commercial establishments up to 15-9-2006. Likewise, the premises which were desealed pursuant to the notice dated 20-5-2006 shall have to be resealed with effect from 16-9-2006 in case the misuser is not stopped by 15-9-2006. The Monitoring Committee will examine these cases and ensure the compliance with the undertakings and directions in respect of sealing and file reports in this Court in terms of the directions already issued.
8. We direct the Monitoring Committee to examine broadly the roads and/or activities in respect whereof undertakings were given as also in respect of 5006 premises sealed so that we may consider issuing directions for stopping of misuser by others similarly placed to those who gave undertakings and to those whose premises already stood sealed before the enactment of the law in question.
9. The learned Solicitor General, on taking instructions and having discussion with the officers, has filed a brief note on the basis whereof we have heard him and other learned counsel. Considering that note, despite the impugned Act and the notices, we direct that the following activities shall not be carried on in residential areas:
"(1) Banquet halls.
(2) Any trade or activity involving any kind of obnoxious, hazardous, inflammable, non compatible and polluting substance or process.
(3) Retail shops of the following kind:
(a) building materials (timber, marble, iron and steel and sand), firewood, coal and any fire hazardous and other bulky materials;
(b) repair shops of automobiles repair and workshop, cycle rickshaw repair, tyre resoling and retreading, and battery charging;
(c) storage, godown and warehousing;
(d) junk shop;
(e) liquor shop;
(f) printing, dyeing and varnishing.
Note: (i) In (a) will not be included business of finished marble products where cutting and polishing activity of marble is not undertaken.
(ii) The repair shops and workshops in case of automobile and cycle rickshaws, would presently be not stopped on plots abutting mixed use streets of right of way of 30 m or more.
(4) Retail shops on floors other than ground floor except (a) on streets of 24 m right of way or more, (b) where it was permissible as per the Master Plan, 1962.
(5) Professional activities will not be permissible except by architects, chartered accountants, doctors and lawyers. Even by these professionals, professional activity will not be carried on in excess of 50% permissible coverage in residential premises and by anyone who is not a resident in such premises.
(6) Banks and nursing homes operating on plots of less than 200 sq.m. in the case of residential plotted development (160 sq.m. in villages, special areas and rehabilitation colonies) and more than 1000 sq.m., except those operating on master plan and zonal plan roads.
(7) Guest houses operating on plots of less than 200 sq.m. in the case of residential plotted development (160 sq.m. in villages and rehabilitation colonies) and more than 1000 sq.m., except those operating in special areas or on master plan and zonal plan roads.
(8) Pre primary schools, fitness centres and gyms operating on floors other than ground floor."
10. The protection of the would not be available in respect of the following unauthorised development:
11. The learned Solicitor General has made a statement that the aforesaid prohibition would be applicable to the entire Delhi irrespective of the width of the road."(a) any construction that is over 15 m in height in residential plotted development and regularised colonies;
(b) any construction beyond ground + 3 floors in residential plotted development and regularised colonies."
12. It seems that out of 2025 colonies, 28 colonies are placed in category A and 51 in category B. In the colonies of category A and category B, except professional activities as abovenoted and subject to the stipulations noted, no other commercial activity would be permissible.
13. It further appears that there are 51 colonies in category C and 244 in category D. In respect of the colonies in categories C and D, for the present, what is stated in the public notice dated 21-7-2006 would be applicable and any user contrary thereto would be stopped with effect from 16-9-2006. The public notice dated 21-7-2006 as applicable to colonies falling in categories C and D reads as under:
In addition to these, the aforesaid directions would also be applicable to colonies falling in categories C and D."b. In colonies falling in categories C and D, subject to consultation of RWA in residential plots facing streets/roads with a minimum 18 m ROW in regular residential plotted development, 13.5 m ROW in rehabilitation colonies and 9 m ROW in special area and urban villages."
14. The aforesaid interim directions would operate till the decision of the writ petitions. We make it clear that any direct or indirect violation of these directions would entail consequences of disobedience of the directions of this Court.
15. The Government of India may issue, within one week, requisite directive in exercise of power under S.3(4) of the withdrawing the relief to the abovementioned categories of the unauthorised development and, accordingly, amend the notification dated 20-5-2006 also keeping in view this order.
16. Pleadings in the writ petitions may be completed within three months.
17. The Monitoring Committee shall give its report in terms of the aforesaid directions within one month. To consider the report and for issue of further directions, list the matter in the, second week of September, 2006.
18. Application for intervention in WP (C) No. 266 of 2006 is allowed.
