M.C.MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                      [2017] 12 S.C.R. 467



                          M.C.MEHTA                                 A
                                 v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
       IN RE: VISHVJYOTI OVERSEAS (P) LTD. & ORS.
               (I.A. Nos. 93010 and 93007 of 2017 in                B
                 Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985)
                       DECEMBER 15, 2017
      [MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
      Urban Development:                                            c
       Misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes in
Delhi - In violation of various laws including municipal laws,
Master Plan etc. and environmental laws - Supreme Court
constituted Monitoring Committee directing them to seal the
residential premises which. were being used for commercial purposes D
- Some of those who were misusing the premises were given time to
make alternative arrangement - To get over the orders passed by
Supreme Court, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) modified the
master plan of Delhi as regards the chapter on mixed land-use - ~
Thereafter, Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 was enacted
- Pursuant thereto Celltral Government issued a Notification which E
provided that any premises sealed in pursuance of a judgment, orders
or decree of any court after 1.1.2006, would be eligible to be
restored for. a period of one year - By the time the Act was enacted
and Notification was issued, 5006 commercial establishments had
already been sealed and 40,814 affidavits had been received by F
the Monitoling Committee stating that misuse would be stopped by
30.6.2006 - Provisions of the Act and the Notification were also
challenged as unconstitutional - The court stayed the directions in
the Notification opining that they amou11ted to over-ruling the orders
and directions issued by Supreme Court - DDA thereafter amended
the Master Plan notifying 2002 patches/streets for mixed use by G
Notification dated 7.9.2006 - Supreme Court granted partial stay
of the Notificatio11 - This court further restrained the Central
Government and other authorities from issuing an)! other
notification for conversion of residential premises to commercial
use, except with the leave of Supreme Court - Supreme Court H
                               467
468            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A     transferred all the cases pertaining to challenge to the Delhi Laws
      Act and subsequent legislations on the same subject - With regard
      to sealing orders at the instance of the Monitoring committee, the
      Court directed that !As filed before Supreme Court for de-sealing
      the premises was to be treated as statutory appeals and would stand
      transferred to statutory Appellate Tribunal and 30 days time was ·
B
      given to file further I.As for de-sealing - Present applications were
      filed seeking permission of the court to file an appeal before statutory
      Appellate Tribunal against the sealing order beyond the granted
      time of 30 days - Held: The applicants are keen to utilise the premises
      for residential purpose - Their formal appeal before Appellate
c     Tribunal would not serve any purpose - Therefore, it is directed
      that the premises be de-sealed for residential purposes, subject to
      certain conditions - Henceforth, it will not be necessary for any
      person whose residential premises has been sealed, to file appeal
      before Statutory Appellate Tribunal - The person can directly
      approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an
D
      amount of Rs. 1,00,0001- with the Monitoring Committee - The
      petitions which were transferred to High court, are withdrawn for
      expeditious hearing.
            Disposing of the applications, the Court

E           HELD: 1. It seems that the applicants are keen to utilise
      the premises in question for residential purposes, as stated in
      their application. That being the position, it would hardly serve
      any purpose if the applicants are required to formally file an appeal
      before the Appellate Tribunal which is apparently already dealing
      with a very large number of appeals. It would, therefore, be in
F     the fitness of things to de-seal the premises in question for
      residential purposes subject to certain conditions. [Para 34] [484-
      D-E]
            2. Following conditions would meet the ends of justice and
      also provide a safeguard against possible misuse of residential
G     premises for commercial (non-industrial) purposes:
            (1) The applicants will file an affidavit before the
      Monitoring Committee stating that they will use the premises in
      question only for residential purposes and for no other purpose
      whatsoever. The applicants will identify the persons for whose
H     residential use the premises in question are sought to be
           M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                         469


de-sealed. Any change will be notified to the Monitoring               A
Committee.
      (2) The affidavit filed by the applicants will state the name,
address and other particulars of the person \vho will be
responsible for any misuse of the premises in question, that is,
for use of the premises in question for any purpose other than         B
residential.
      (3) The person identified as the person responsible in terms
of condition No.2 above will also file an affidavit clearly stating
therein that he or she will ensure that the premises in question
are used only for residential purposes and that in the event the       c
premises in question are used for any purpose other than
residential; the deponent would be liable for contempt of this
Court.
      (4) The applicants will file with the Monitoring Committee
proof of payment of conversion charges to the statutory authority.     D
     (5) The affidavits will be filed before the Monitoring
Committee who may impose such other further conditions as may
be appropriate. [Para 35] (484-E-H; 485-B-C]
       3. In the event the Monitoring Committee is satisfied that
the premises in question ought to be de-sealed, it may require         E
the concerned statutory authority to de-seal the premises in
question. If the Monitoring Committee is not satisfied that the
premises in question ought to be de-sealed, the applicants will
be at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate orders. It is
made clear that in view of Report No. 46 dated 12•h November,
                                                                       F
2007 this Order will not be applicable to all other commercial
activities that have been sealed in the premises in question. [Para
36] [485-D]
      4. Henceforth it will not be necessary for any person whose
residential premises have been sealed for misuse for any G
commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance of
the Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate
statutory Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly
approach the Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing
an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with· the Monitoring Committee
which will keep an account of the amounts received by it. Any H
470            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A     person who has already filed an appeal before the appropriate
      statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer approaching the
      Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and approach
      the Monitoring Committee for relief on the above terms and
      conditions and on deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs with the
      Monitoring Committee, provided that the premises were sealed
B
      at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. Any challe.nge to
      the decision of the Monitoring Committee will lie to this Court
      only. [Paras 36 and 37] [485-D-G]
            5. It is clarified that this order will inure to the benefit of
      only those who are using residential premises for commercial
c     purposes (non-industrial) or for any other non-residential. purpose
      and whose premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring
      Committee. This order will not at all inure for the benefit of
      anybody using residential premises for any industrial activity of
      any sort or nature whatsoever. [Para 38] [486-A-B]
D           6. With regard to the writ petitions that have been
      transferred to the Delhi High Court which challenge the Act and
      subsequent legislations; the intention of this Court in transferring
      the writ petitions to the Delhi High Court was for their expeditious
      disposal preferably within one year. Almost four years have gone
 E    by in this exercise but without any decision. Therefore, given
      the gravity of the situation as revealed from the Reports of the
      Monitoring Committee, it would be appropriate that this Court
      ought to hear the writ petitions on an expeditious basis and,
      accordingly, withdraw the writ petitions that were transferred to
      the Delhi High Court to this Court. [Para 39] [486-C-D]
 F
            M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. (2004) 6 SCC 588 : .
            [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 504 ; M.C. Mehta v. Union of
            India (2006) 3 sec 399 : [2006] 2 SCR 264 ; M.C.
            Mehta v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 429 ; Delhi
            Pradesh Citizens Council v. Union of India (2006) 6
 G          SCC 305 ; M.C Mehta v. Union of India (2006) 7
            SCC 456 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR '704 ; M.C. Mehta v.
            Union of India (2013) 16 SCC 336 ; M.C. Mehta v.
            Union of India (2012)' 11 SCC 759 -:- referred to.

 H
             M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 471



                          Case Law Reference                                     A
[2004) 2 Suppl. SCR 504             referred to                Para3
[2006) 2 SCR 264                    referred to                Paras
(2006) 3 sec 429                    referred to                Para 14
(2006) 6 sec 305                    referred to                Para 21           B

[2006) 6 Suppl. SCR 704             referred to.               Para 23
(2013) 16 sec 336                   referred to                Para29 ·
(2012) 11 sec 759                   referred to                Para 29
                                                                                 c
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I. A. Nos. 93010 and 93007
of2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677of1985.
       Petitioner-in-person, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv, Rajnish Singh,
Sudhir Naagar, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Dinesh Kumar, Navdeep Jain,                D
Niraj Jha, Ms. Rekha Choudhary, K. K. Mohan, Ms. Minakshi Vij, Ad vs
for the appearing parties.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       MADAN lJ. LOKUR, J. 1. Invaders have pillaged Delhi for
hundreds of years, but for the last couple of decades it is being ravaged        E
by its own citizens and officials governing the capital city - we refer to
una.uthorized constructions and misuse of residential premises for
industrial and other commercial purposes. This Court has focussed on
these illegal activities in several decisions and has issued directions from
time to time to try and bring sQme sanity to urban living but to little or no    F
effect. The applications before us, the chronology of events and the
historical developments leading up to these applications has given cause
to reflect and decide on some of these issues keeping our constitutional
obligations in mind.
Decision of 71h May, 2004
                                                                                 G
       2. Way back in the 1990s it was brought to the notice of this Court
that a variety of illegal activities were being carried on in the capital city
of Delhi with reference to industries established in residential or non-
conforming areas as well as misuse of residential premises for other
c0mmercial purposes. On an application having been moved, this Court             H
472            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017) 12 S.C.R.


A     realized that those in authority and power were not at ali" keen to take
      steps to remove hazardous and noxious industries and heavy and large
      industries out of Delhi, prohibit or prevent the continuing illegalities or
      even otherwise stop the misuse of residential premises for a commercial
      purpose. Since the attitude of the powers that be raised an issue ofmis-
      governance or non-governance affecting the well-being of the citizens
B
      of Delhi, this Court felt that it could no longer be a mute spectator to the
      whims and fancies of those in power and authority. It was also felt that
      it would be necessary to direct those in authority and power to implement
      the law for the sake of the citizens of Delhi. This Court faced a situation
      where there was little or no support to the rule of law by the concerned
 c    officials and today the citizens of Delhi are faced with and are witnessing,
      among other issues, outrageous levels of pollution in Delhi entirely due
      to the lack of concern for the rule of law - the citizens of Delhi are
      paying a heavy price with hopelessly polluted air to breathe and
      consequent damage to their lungs, respiratory problems and possible
      damage to the brain of infants and children.
D
              3. M.C. Mehta, an environmental activist, had already moved this
      Court with an application to find a remedy for the air pollution in Delhi in
      a pending writ petition. Although he sought several reliefs, this Court
      first concentrated on use of residential areas for industrial purposes and
      later, the misuse of residential premises for other commercial activities ..
 E
      For the present, we are concerned with the misuse of residential premises
      for other commercial activities. These issues first arose when preliminary
      orders were passed by this Court on his application on 30'h September,
      2002 and 19'h August, 2003. Thereafter, this Court addressed the issue
      of residential areas being used for industrial purposes by a judgment and
 F    order dated 7'h May, 2004 in M.C. Melita v. Union of lndia~ 1

             4. A reading of the judgment and order dated 7'h May, 2004 makes
      it apparent that this Court expected all those concerned with governance
      of Delhi to adhere to the rule of law and ensure its implementation.
      Unfortunately, this Court was anguished by events that demonstrated
 G    that the trust reposed was belied in terms of action for implementation
      of the law and that industrial activity continued in areas despite the Master
      Plan for Delhi, meaning thereby that impermissible industrial activity
      continued in residential areas in Delhi.


 H    '(2004) 6 sec 588
               M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              473
                      [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

       5. This Court also noted that no dispute was raised by the A
Government oflndia or the Delhi Government or by any statutory authority
that unauthorised and illegal industrial activity had commenced and
continued in Delhi in blatant breach of the provisions of the Master Plan
and no action, or ineffective action, had been taken by the concerned
authorities. Rather than put their respective houses in order, it was noted
                                                                            B
that a blame game had begun with the responsibility of taking action
being shifted with each authority blaming one another - be it the
Government oflndia or the Delhi Government or the statutory authorities.
Tragically, the situation continues even today and those wqo are suffering
are the citizens of Delhi, the sufferance being not only confined to
breathing hazardous and noxious air but also the health of thousands of C
people including children and infants residing in Delhi. In other words,
the consequences of the failure to implement the rule of law in Delhi
were having a generational impact, which cannot be anything but
disastrous.
        6. This Court noted that according to the Delhi Government it is D
not the function of the State Government to implement the Master Plan.
According to the Government oflndia it is not the implementing agency
and this Court noted that the Government oflndia had taken a somersault
in this regard: According to other statutory authorities in Delhi, they too
avoided shouldering any responsibility for inaction. Each of these
authorities of the State was shifting their stands, as convenient, without . E
any regard for statutory provisions and in blatant breach of the rule of
law. This Court darkly hinted that in all this there was connivance with
industry for extraneous considerations.
       7. Accordingly, this Court felt it appropriate to appoint a Monitoring
Committee to oversee and ensure compliance with the directions given            F
by this Court in its decision of 7'h May, 2004 with regard to industrial
activity in residential or non-conforming areas in Delhi.
Decision of 16'h February, 2006
      8. In a subsequent decision dated l61h February, 2006 in M.C. G
Mehta v. Union of lndia2 this Court again noted flagrant violations of
various laws including municipal laws, the Master Plan and other plans
besides environmental laws that had been engaging the attention of this
Court for several years. It was noted that several orders were passed
2
    (2006) 3 sec 399                                                            H
474           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A from time to time only to secure implementation of the laws and to protect
  the fundamental rights of citizens since it was the constitutional duty of
  this Court.
         9. This Court also considered an extremely pertinent issue: what
  would happen when those entrusted by law to protect the rights of the
B citizens   are themselves violators and/or abettors of the violations? The
  difficult task faced in such a situation was noted where, as a part of its
  constitutional duty, this Court is required to preserve the rule of law so
  that people may not lose faith in it and also point out violations of the rule
  of law by those who are supposed to implement the law. It was observed
  that the issue is not one of an absence of law but of its implementation.
c         I 0. Having passed orders on 7'h May, 2004 relating to unauthorized
  industrial activity in Delhi and being compelled to set up a Monitoring
  Committee, this Court focused its attention on yet another problem facing
  the citizens of Delhi, namely, that of misuse of residential premises for
  commercial purposes. In the decision dated 16'11 February, 2006 in M. C.
D Mehta, this Court noted in paragraph 53 of the Report that it cannot
  remain a mute spectator when violations of the law affect the environment
  and the healthy living of those who abide by the law. It was stated, and
   the pain and anguish of this Court is quite apparent:
           "Despite its difficulty, this Court cannot remain a mute spectator
 E         when the violations also affect the environment and healthy living
           oflaw-abiders. The enormity of the problem which 1 to a great
           extent, is the doing of the authorities themselves, does not
           mean that a beginning should not be made to set. things
           right. If the entire misuser cannot be stopped at one point of time
           because of its extensive nature, then it has to be stopped in a
 F         phased manner, beginning with major violators. There has to be
           a will to do it. We have hereinbefore noted in brief the orders
           made in the last so many years but it seems the same has had no
           effect on the authorities. The things cannot be permitted to go on
           in this manner forever. On one hand, various laws are enacted,
 G         master plans are prepared by expert planners, provision is made
           in the plans also to tackle the problem of existing unauthorised
           constructions and misusers and, on the other hand, such illegal
           activities go on unabated openly under the gaze of everyone,
           without having any respect &nd regard for law and other citizens.''
           [Emphasis supplied by us].
 H
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 475
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

       11. This Court observed that if the Jaws are not enforced and             A
orders of the Courts to implement the Jaws are ignored, the result can
only be total lawlessness. In the decision rendered on l 6'h February,
2006 this Court noted, quite explicitly and not in a veiled manner, that
blatant misuse of properties in Delhi for commercial purposes on such a
large-scale could not take place without the connivance of the officers
                                                                                 B
and that it was therefore necessary to take action to check corruption,
nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of citizens - and we may
add, chaos and disaster. This Court noted that there must be some
accountability not only of those violating the law but also of those errant
officers who turn a blind eye to the misuse of residential premises for
commercial purposes. It was observed in paragraph 61 of the Report as            c
follows:
       "Despite passing of the laws and repeated orders of the [Delhi]
       High Court and this Court, the enforcement of the laws and
       the implementations of the orders are utterly lacking. If the
       Jaws are not enforced and the orders of the courts to enforce and D
       implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total
       lawlessness. It is, therefore, necessary to also identify and take
       appropriate action against officers responsible for this state of
       affairs. Such blatant misuse of properties at large-scale .
       cannot take place without connivance of the officers
                                                                                  E
       concerned. It is also a source of corruption. Therefore,
       action is also necessary to check corruption, nepotism and
       total apathy towards the rights of the citizens. Those who
       own the properties that are misused have also implied responsibility
       towards the hardship, inconvenience, suffering caused to the
       residents of the locality and injuries to third parties. It is, therefore, F
       not only the question of stopping the misuser but also making the
     . owners at default accountable for the injuries caused to others.
       Similar would also be the accountability of errant officers as well
       since, prima facie, such large-scale misuser, in violation of
       laws, cannot take place without the active connivance of
       the officers. It would be for the officers to show what effective G
       steps were taken to stop the misuser." [Emphasis supplied by us].
     12. In view of the above, this Court directed the Delhi Municipal
Corporation (for short the MCD) to give wide publicity in leading
newspapers of the requirement that those misusing their residential
                                                                                H
476             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] 12 S.C.R.


A     premises for commercial purposes should cease the misuse on their own.
      It was also directed that 30 days after the issuante of the public notices,
      and if the misuse is not stopped, the process of sealing the premises
      would start. The period of 30 days expired on or about 291h March,
      2006.
B             13. Unfortunately, issuance of the public notices had no impact
      either on those violating the law or on those expected to implement the
      rule of Jaw. Perhaps, as observed by this Court, the reason was
      connivance, corruption, nepotism and total apathy towards the rights of
      the citizens of Delhi - who are today facing the brunt of the decades of
      illegalities having been committed.
c
      Decision of 24'h March, 2006
              14. Faced with this situation, in its decision of24'h March, 2006 in
      M.C. Mehta v. U11ion of India 3 this Court observed that the MCD had
      issued appropriate notices but, to oversee the implementation of the law
D     regarding residential premises used for commercial (non-industrial)
      purposes, it would be appropriate to seal offending premises. Therefore,
      rather than leave any discretion to the officers of the MCD (for obvious
      reasons) a Monitoring Committee was appointed consisting of Mr K.J.
      Rao, Former Advisor to the Election Commissioner, Mr Bhure Lal,
      Chairman, EPCA and Major General (Retd.) Som Jhingan. All necessary
E     facilities to the members of the Monitoring Committee were directed to
      be provided by the MCD including facility of transport, secretarial
      services, honorarium etc.
              15. As a part of its mandate, the Monitoring Committee was to
      begin the process of sealing with effect from 291hMarch, 2006. Some of
 F    those who were misusing the premises requested for reasonable time to
      make alternative arrangements. This Court directed that they should
      cease the misuse on or before 3Qlh April, 2006 while giving an undertaking
      to this Court that misuse would be stopped. Some others were given .
      time till 301h June, 2006 subject to their filing an affidavit stating that the
G     misuse would be stopped on or before 301h June, 2006 and no further
      extension would be sought. They were also required to give an undertaking
      to the effect that if the misuse was not stopped by 30th June, 2006 they
      would be subject to perjury and contempt of Court. To ensure compliance
      of the orders of sealing, it was made clear that the sealing process would
H     '(2006) 3 sec 429
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 477
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

continue notwithstanding any order passed by any Court and the Delhi            A
Police was directed to extend full support for carrying out the sealing
activity.
Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and interim stay
       16. To get over the orders passed by this Court, which were
apparently uncomfortable to the powers that be, the Delhi Development           B
Authority (DDA) modified the Master Plan for Delhi on 28'h March,
2006 insofar as the chapter on mixed land use is concerned. Soon
thereafter, perhaps by a coincidence, the Government of India moved
LA. 1931 in this Court praying that the local bodies in Delhi be directed
to complete the exercise of identification of mixed use of roads/streets        c
in residential areas within a period of six months. As a result of this
application and with a view to grant relief, on a temporary basis, in respect
of some areas, this Court permitted the Government of India, on 28th
April, 2006 to place detailed facts before the Monitoring Committee.
The necessary facts were placed by the Government of India before
the Monitoring Committee, who heard all concerned. including the                D
Government of India and submitted a report on 4th May, 2006. When the
application filed by the Government oflndia came up for consideration
before this Court along with the report of the Monitoring Committee on
11th May, 2006 the Government oflndia withdrew its application.
       17. Why this turnaround? AB ill was pending or perhaps introduced        E
in Parliament which mandated, inter alia, a moratorium on all adverse
action in respect of unauthorized development, notwithstanding any
judgment, decree or order of any Court, by providing for a status quo
with effect from I" January, 2006. The Bill was intended to be a temporary
measure for one year but has since been re-enacted in some form or              F
another and is now operative till 31" December, 2017. Section 3 of the
Bill (as finally enacted) provided as above and it reads as follows:
       3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any relevant law or
       any rules, regulations or bye-laws made thereunder, the Central
       Government shall within a period of one year of the coming into          G
       effect of this Act, take all possible measures to finalise norms,
       policy guidelines and feasible strategies to deal with the problem
       of unauthorised development with regard to the under-mentioned
       categories, namely:-

                                                                                H
478            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017]12 S.C.R.


A             · (a) mixed land use not conforming to the Master Plan;
                (b) construction beyond sanctioned plans;· and
                (c) encroachment by slum and Jhuggi-Jhompri dwellers and
                     hawkers and street vendors,
            so that the development of Delhi takes place in a sustainable and
B           planned manner.
            (2) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) and
            notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,
            status quo as on the 1" day of January, 2006 shall be maintained
            in respect of the categories of unauthorised development mentioned
 c          in sub-section (1 ).
            (3) All notices issued by any local authority for initiating action
            against the categories of unauthorised development referred to in
            sub-section (1), shall be deemed to have been suspended and no
            punitive action shall be taken during the said period of one year.
 D           (4) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Act, the
             Central Government may, at any time before the expiry of one
             year, withdraw the exemption by notification in the Official Gazette
             in respect of one or more of the categories of unauthorised
           . development mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3 ), as
             the case may be.
 E
             'Unauthorized development' was defined in Section 2(1 )(i) of the
      Bill (as finally enacted) in the following words:
            (i) "unauthorised development" means use ofland or use of building
            or. construction of building carried out in contravention of the
 F          sanctioned plans or without obtaining the sanction of plans, or in
            contravention of the land use as permitted under the Master Plan
            or Zonal Plan or layout plan, as the case may be, and includes
            encroachment.
            18. On 12'h May, 2006 the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Bill,
 G    2006 was passed by the Lok Sabha and it was passed on 1s•h May, 2006
      by the Rajya Sabha. The Bill received the assent of the President on
      19'h May, 2006 and was notified on the same day. The statute is hereafter
      referred to as the Act.
             19. The very next day, on 20'h May, 2006 the Government oflndia
 H    issued a notification placing a moratorium in respect of all notices issued
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                479
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

by the local authorities and directing them to give effect to the provisions   A
of the Act instead, which virtually restored the status quo ante. The
following was notified:
       ( 1) The premises sealed by any local authority in pursuance of a
judgment, order or decree of any court after the 1st day of January,
2006 shall be eligible to be restored, for a period of one year, with effect   B
from the 19th day of May, 2006 to the position as was obtaining as on
the 1st day of January, 2006.
       (2) All commercial establishments which are required to cease
carrying out commercial activities at their premises by the 30th day of
June, 2006 may continue such activities, as they were being carried out        c
on the 1st day of January, 2006 for a period of one year, with effect from
the 19th day of May, 2006.
       20. However, by the time the Act was enacted and the notification
of 20'h May, 2006 issued, quite shockingly 40,814 affidavits had been
received by the Monitoring Committee. In these affidavits, it was stated       D
that the misuse would be stopped by 30'h June, 2006. In addition, 5006
commercial establishments had been sealed by that time. This gives an
indication of the magnitude of misuse of residential. premises for
commercial purposes in Delhi.
       21. Feeling aggrieved by the statutory protection given to violators    E
and breakers of the law, quite a few public spirited persons challenged
the provisions of the Act as being unconstitutional. A challenge was also
made to the notification dated 20'h May, 2006. Among the petitioners
was Mr. P.K. Dave a former Lt. Governor of Delhi. A request was
made by the petitioners for a stay of the operation of the Act and the
notification dated 2Q'h May, 2006, The request for interim orders was          F
considered by this Court in Delhi Pradesh Citizens Council v. Union
of lndia 4 on 1Q1h August, 2006. On that date this Court did not accept
the plea for a complete stay of the impugned legislation but it stayed the
two directions mentioned above as contained in the notification dated
201h May, 2006. This Court was of opinion that these directions amount         G
to overruling the orders and directions issued by this Court and action
taken as a consequence of the orders and directions. This Court clarified
that the order of stay would mean that the 5006 sealed premises (if de-
sealed) would have to be re-sealed. It also meant that the undertakings

'(2006J 6 sec 305                                                              H
480            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A     given to cease the misuse by 30•h June, 2006 would revive. However,
      considering the events that had taken place as well as the report of the
      Monitoring Committee, time to stop misuse and comply with the
      undertaking given in respect of 40,814 commercial establishments was
      extended till 151hSeptember, 2006.
B     Decision of 29'h September, 2006
            22. As is quite evident, the authorities had commenced a cat and
      mouse game with this Court perhaps to protect the vested interests of
      those having little or no respect for the rule of law. As a part of the
      game, the DDA had earlier issued public notices on 21" July, 2006 for
 c    amendment of the Master Plan inviting objections to the proposed
      modifications. Soon thereafter public hearings were conducted and on
      s•h September, 2006 the DDA recommended an amendment of the
      Master Plan. The Master Plan was accordingly amended and on 7•h
      September, 2006 and 1S'h September 2006 about 2002 patches/streets
      were notified for mixed use.
D
             23. The question that then arose for consideration of this Court
      was whether the stay granted on 1o•h August, 2006 ought to be modified
      and whether the notification dated 7•h September, 2006 ought to be stayed.
      This Court considered this question in its decision of 29'h September,
      2006 in M.C. Mehta v. U11io11 of llldia5 and noted that the authorities
 E    were now exercising judicial functions - and virtually overruling orders
      of the Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, a partial stay was granted
      and it was held in paragraph 20 of the Report:
            "There cannot be any doubt that the legislature would lack
            competence to extend the time granted by this Court in
 F          the purported exercise of law-making power. That would
            be virtually exercising judicial functions. Such functions do
            not vest in the legislature. In fact, those who gave undertakings
            are already in breach of the undertakings by not stopping misuser
            by 30-6-2006. The dignity and authority of the Court has to
 G          be protected not for any indiYidual but for maintenance of
            the rule of law. The fact that those who gave undertakings may
            have been misled in view of the subsequent development can
            only be a mitigating factor while considering the action to be taken
            for breach of the undertakings. Further, there are no equities in
      '(2006) 7 sec 456
 H
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA.& ORS.                               481
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

      favour of those who gave undertakings to this Court and obtained        A
      the benefit of time, otherwise their premises could have been sealed
      on 29-3-2006 or soon thereafter. The nature of trade conducted
      by most of them who gave undertakings has been noted above.
      There is serious challenge to the validity of the Act and the
      notification. Pending determination thereof, such persons cannot
                                                                              B
      be allowed to claim any benefit of the notification:' [Emphasis
      supplied by us].
       It may be mentioned en passant that in addition to Mr. P.K. Dave,
a former Lt. Governor of Delhi, Mr. Omesh Sehgal :i former Chief
Secretary of Delhi was also a petitioner before this Court and he
described the hearings given by the DOA as a farce since a decision
                                                                              c
had already been taken to amend the Master Plan even before inviting
objections. This is recorded in paragraph 14 of the Report.
       24. In the above background this Court passed the following
directions on 29 111 September, 2006:
                                                                              D
      (i) Re: Premises relating to which undertakings were given
      The commercial activities by those who gave undertakings deserve
      to be stopped forthwith. Having regard, however, to the plea of
      forthcoming major festivals, we permit those who gave
      undertakings to stop misuser on or before 31-10-2006.                   E
      (ii) xxx xxx xxx
      (iii) Re: Other premises for which protection       is extended by
      the Notification dated 7-9-2006
      Regarding the remaining premises which may be covered by the
                                                                              F
      Notification dated 7-9-2006 read with 15-9-2006 we direct that
      the said premises may not be sealed pending decision of these
      petitions on undertakings being filed before the Monitoring
      Committee on or before 10-11-2006 that misuser shall be stopped
      as per the directions of this Court if the Act is invalidated ancl/or
      the Notification is quashed ........ .                                  G
      (iv) Re: Premises for which protection is not extended by the
      Notification dated 7-9-2006
      In respect of the remaining premises not covered by the
      Notifications dated 7-9-2006 and 15-9-2006, the sealing process
                                                                              H
482            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A           will continue in terms of the order dated 16-2-2006 and
            10-8-2006....... "
             25. In addition to the above, so that the cat and mouse game does
      not escalate, this Court restrained the respondents (Government oflndia
      and other authorities) from issuing any other notification for conversion
B     of residential premises to commercial use, except with the leave of this
      Court.
      I.A. Nos. 93007 and 93010
         26. In this background, we are required to consider I.A. No. 93007
  and 93010 filed by the applicants (Vishvjyoti Overseas (P) Ltd., Gitanjali
c Overseas (P) Ltd., Sumangal Promoters (P) Ltd. and Lakshya
  Construction (P) Ltd.). They had leased out their property that is 5
  Sikandra Road, New Delhi to Infinity Knowledge Systems by a lease
  deed dated 27'h December, 2006. Although the subject property was in a
  residential area, the lease was for commercial purposes thereby indicating
D the impunity with which orders passed by this Court were flouted by
  those who wanted to do so and the nature of protection enjoyed by
  them.
         ·27. In any event, when violation of the orders of this Court came
   to the knowledge of the Monitoring Committee, the subject property
 E was sealed on l21hOctober, 2007. Apparently feeling aggrieved by the
   sealing of the subject property, Infinity Knowledge Systems moved I.A.
   Nos. 2195-96 (where it is also described as Infinity Business School) in
   this Court for de-sealing it. On a report having been received from the
   Monitoring Committee (Report No. 46 dated 12'11 November, 2007) this
   Court passed an order on J3•h November, 2007 permitting Infinity
 F Knowledge Systems to continue in the subject property till 30'h June,
   2008 subject to deposit of conversion charges for the years 2006-2007
   and 2007-2008 or from the date of occupation of the subject property
   whichever is later as penalty for misuse. Infinity Knowledge Systems
   was also required to file an undertaking that it would deposit the required
 G charges.
          28. On 15'h November, 2007 an undertaking was filed by the
   Managing Director oflnfinity Knowledge Systems and on 11 •h December,
   2007 Infinity Knowledge Systems was permitted to use the premises till
   30'h June, 2008 subject to payment of conversion charges. There is no
 H dispute that conversion charges were paid by Infinity Knowledge Systems
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               483
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

and the subject property was de-sealed on J4'h January, 2008. Thereafter A
in view of the undertaking to stop misuse of the subject property, it was
re-sealed on 1" July, 2008 and we are told that Infinity Knowledge
Systems has vacated the subject property. Since then the subject property
is said to be lying sealed.
Dedsion of 30'h April, 2013                                                   B
       29. On 30'h April, 2013 this Court passed a significant judgment
and order in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. 6 This decision related to
the challenge to the Act and subsequent legislations extending the
provisions of the Act. A few directions were issued but two of them
need particular mention: (i) All the writ petitions challenging the Delhi c
Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (and subsequent legislations virtually
extending the provisions of the Act) and I.As. connected therewith were
transferred to the Delhi High Court with a request to hear the matters at
an early date, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of the
entire records and papers. (ii) The order passed by this Court on 3nt
January, 2012 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of lndia 7 to the following effect D
would continue:
      "Till the matter is heard by the Court, the Monitoring Committee
      shall not order further sealing of the premises which are under its
      scrutiny. We also direct that no construction, temporary or
      permanent, shall be made on the premises which have been the            E
      subject-matter of scrutiny of the Monitoring Committee and no
      order shall be passed by the Government or any authority
      regularising such construction or sanction the change of user.''
      30. With the above orders, this Court disposed of all the pending
writ petitions on the challenge to the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions)        F
Act, 2006 and subsequent legislations on the same subject.
       31. With regard to the sealing orders passed at the instance of the
Monitoring Committee, it was directed, inter alia, that: (i) I.As filed in
this Court for de-sealing the premises will be treated as statutory appeals
and will stand transferred to the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal    G
for disposal. (ii) Where I.As or statutory appeals have not been filed,
this Court granted 30 days time to file an appeal before the appropriate
statutory Appellate Tribunal for disposal.
•c2013) 16 sec 336
1
 c2012> 11 sec 1s9                                                            H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] I 2 S.C.R.



A           32: Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 301hApril, 2013 the
      subject applications have been filed for permission to appeal to the
      appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal against the sealing order. The
      applications were filed on or about 15'h September, 2017 which is well
      beyond the 30 days grace period granted by this Court.

B            33. It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that
      this Court has passed several orders permitting the institution of delayed
      appeals subject to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards costs. Therefore,
      the applicants may also be permitted to file an appeal which should be
      heard by the appropriate statutory Appellate Triburial on merits. The
      applicants say that they have already deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in the
c     Registry of this Court.
              34. It seems to us that the applicants are keen to utilise the premises
      in question for residential purposes, as stated in their application. There
      is no apparent intention to utilise the premises in question for commercial
      purposes or for any purpose not permitted by law. Thatbeing the position,
D     it would hardly serve any purpose if the applicants are required to formally
      file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which is apparently already
      dealing with a very large number of appeals. It would, therefore, be in
      the fitness of things to de-seal the premises in question for residential
      purposes subject to certain conditions.
 E     .    .
      Directwns ' ·
             35. In our opinion, as far as Infinity Knowledge Systems is
      concerned the following conditions would meet the ends of justice and
      also provide a safeguard against possible misuse of residential premises
      for commercial (non-industrial) purposes:
 F
             (I) The applicants will file an affidavit before the Monitoring
             Committee stating that they will use the premises in question only
             for residential purposes and for no other purpose whatsoever.
             The applicants will identify the persons for whose residential use
             the premises in question are sought to be de-sealed. Any change
G            will be notified to the Monitoring Committee.                ·
             (2) The affidavit filed by the applicants will state the name, address
             and other particulars of the person who will be responsible for
             any misuse of the premises in question, that is, for use of the
             premises in question for any purpose other than residential.
H
            M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              485
                   [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

      (3) The person identified as the person responsible in terms of A
      condition No.2 above will also file an affidavit clearly stating therein
      that he or she will ensure that the premises in question are used
      only for residential purposes and that in the event the premises in
      question are used for any purpose other than residential, the
      deponent would be liable for contempt of this Court.
                                                                               B
      (4) The applicants will file with the Monitoring Committee proof
      of payment of conversion charges to the statutory authority.
      (5) The affidavits will be filed before the Monitoring Committee
      who may impose such other further conditions as may be
      appropriate.                                                            C
       36. In the event the Monitoring Committee is satisfied that the
premises in question ought to be de-sealed, it may require the concerned
statutory authority to de-seal the premises in question. If the Monitoring
Committee is not satisfied that the premises in question ought to be de-
sealed, the applicants will be at liberty to approach this Court for         D
appropriate orders. We make it clear that in view of Report No. 46
dated 12'11 November, 2007 this Order will not be applicable to all other
commercial activities that have been sealed in the premises in question.
        37. We make it clear that henceforth it will not be necessary for
any person whose residential premises have been sealed for misuse for E
any commercial (other than industrial) purposes at the instance of the
Monitoring Committee to file an appeal before the appropriate statutory
Appellate Tribunal. Instead, that person can directly approach the
Monitoring Committee for relief after depositing an amount of Rs.
 l ,00,000/- with the Monitoring Committee which will keep an account of
the amounts received by it. Any person who has already filed an appeal F
before the appropriate statutory Appellate Tribunal but would prefer
approaching the Monitoring Committee may withdraw the appeal and
approach the Monitoring Committee for relief on the above terms and
conditions and on deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs with the Monitoring
Committee, provided that the premises were sealed at the instance of G
the Monitoring Committee. Any challenge to the decision of the Monitoring
Committee will lie to this Court only. We are constrained and compelled
to make this order given the history of the case and the more than serious
observations of this Court of an apparent nexus between some entities
and the observations regarding corruption and nepotism.
                                                                           H
486            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017] 12 S.C.R.


A            38. We make it clear that this order will inure to the benefit of
      only those who are using residential premises for commercial purposes
      (non-industrial) or for any other non-residential purpose and whose
      premises were sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee. This
      order will not at all iriure for the benefit of anybody using residential
      premises for any industrial activity of any sort or nature whatsoever.
B
             39. With regard to the writ petitions that have been transferred to
      the Delhi High Court which challenge the Act and subsequent legislations,
      we find from a perusal of the website of the Delhi High Court that these
      petitions have not yet been heard, for one reason or another. We do not
      find any fault with the Delhi High Court. The intention of this Court in
 c    transferring the writ petitions to the Delhi High Court was for their
      expeditious disposal preferably within one year. Almost four years have
      gone by in this exercise but without any decision. Therefore, given the
      gravity of the situation as revealed from the Reports of the Monitoring
      Committee, we think it appropriate that this Court ought to hear the writ
 D    petitions on an expeditious basis and, accordingly, withdraw the writ
      petitions that were transferred to the Delhi High Court to this Court.
      The Registry will place these writ petitions on receipt from the Delhi
      High Court for directions on l 2'h January, 2018.
            40. The decisions rendered by this Court, referred to above, indicate
 E    that Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate was assisting this Court as
      Amicus Curiae. It appears that he was discharged. In our opinion, in
      view of the changed circumstances, it is again necessary to request Mr.
      Ranjit Kumar to continue to assist us in the matter. Accordingly we do
      so.
 p           4i. The Monitoring Committee has done yeoman service to the
      citizens of Delhi and has prepared a very large number of reports. We
      request the Monitoring Committee to set up a website and place all
      these reports, duly indexed, on the website so that they are available to
      the citizens of Delhi.

 G
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        , IAs. disposed of.