SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusDEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

                            f20171 12 S.C.R. 540



A                      SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC.

                                        v.

                  DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

B                  (Civil Appeal Nos. 21806-21807 of2017)

                             DECEMBER 12, 2017

                [KUIUAN .JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, .J.J.]

c            Rehabilitation: Demolition ofj!tuggies (hut111e11t.1} - Residents
     of slum clusters claiming rig!tt to shelter - Decision of respondent
     holding that the petitioners were on the right of way and were
     therefore not entitled to relocation - High Court set aside the decision
     of respondent declaring it illegal and w1constitutional and directed
D    that in terms <>f extant policy for relocation ofjhuggi dwellers which
     is operational in view of the orde1:v of the Supreme Court, the cases
     of petitione1:v s!tould be considered for relocation - Writ petitione1:~
     approac!ted Hig/1 Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction ;1s t!tey
     were aggrieved with the nonrco111pli1111ce of the direction i11 the :mid
  · judgment - High Court held that only the actual affected writ
E petitione1:1· were entitled to the benefits of rehabilitation - Held: It
    is not required that in a public interest litigation all the affected
    parties should be petitioners - It is a well-accepted prii1ciple of
    class litigation - In tl1e instant case, .the petitioners have actually
    fumis/1ed the names of persons who have been idehtified as the
F personi affected - Therefore, High Court 011gl1i to have extended
    the benefit to those persons whose names were also fi1rnished by
    way of wmexures to the writ petitions and for w!tose benefits the
    High Court rendered the judgment.

          Allowing the appeals, the Court
G
           HELD: It is not required that in a public interest litigation
    all the affected parties should be petitioners. In the facts of this
    case, the petitioners have actually furnished the names of persons
    who have been identified as the persons affected. Hence the
    Hi~rl1 Court ought to have extended the benefit to those persons
H
                                    540
  SUD AMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA                            541
                     & ORS. ETC.

whose names have also been furnished by way of annexurcs to                   A
the writ petitions and for whose benefits the High Court has
rendered the ,judgment. The eligibility of the persons referred
to in the Annexurcs will have to be verified and that is what is
precisely indicated by the Court in direction No.3 to the effect
that the benefit should be available to those eligible persons in
                                                                              B
terms of the relocation policy. The respondents arc directed to
implement the judgment in the light of the clarification given in
this judgment. [Paras 11 and 12j [545-F-H]

      CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 21806-
21807 of2017.                                                                 c
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi in Contempt Case (C) No. 821 of 2014 and 884 of 2013.

      Prashant Bhushan, Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Advs for the
Appellants.                                                                   D

       Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, ASC'~ Merusagar Si1mantray, A. K.
Srivastava, Ms. Lhingneivah, B. V. Balra1mias, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms.
Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Ms. Bhawana Duhoon,
Pravccn Swarup, R. K. Singh, T;~jinder Virdi, Lokender Kumar, Advs
for the Respondents.                                                          E

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.
                                                                              F
       2. The appellants arc aggrieved since the High Court under the
Contempt of Courts Act has clarified the judgment dated 11.2.20 I0 beyond
what it has actually heen intended to be, according to the appellants.

        3. Short facts: Four writ petitions were filed as ptiblic interest
litigations before the High Court (W.P. No.8904 and connected matters).      G
The prayer in the writ petitions were more or less the same. We shall
extract one set of pniyers:

      "a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction of
      similar nature to direct the Government ofNCT of Delhi to provide
                                                                             J-1
•


    542            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 12 S.C.R.


    A           suitable alternative accommodation to all inhabitants/slum dwellers
                of New Sanjay Camp.

                b. Direct the Respondents to compensate the Petitioners and the
                other residents for their enormous loss occurred in demolition of
                their juggies, which had been demolished arbitrarily without their
    B           adequate rehabilitation/relocation."

                4. These writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment
          dated 11.02.2010. T~e operative portion of the judgment contained in
          paragraphs 62 to 64, reads as follows:-
    c
                "62. It is declared that :

                (i) The decision of the respondents holding that the petitioners are
                on the "Right of Way" and are, therefore, not entitled to relocation,
                is hereby declared as illegal and unconstitutional.
    D

                (ii) In terms of the extant policy for relocation of jhuggi dwellers,
                which is operational in view of the orders of the Supreme Court,
                the cases of the petitioners will be considered fot relocation.

     E
                (iii) Within a period of four months from today, each of those
                eligible among the petitioners, in terms of the above relocation
                policy, will be granted an alternative site as per MPD-2021 subject
                to proof of residence prior to cut-off date. This will happen in
                consultation with each of them in a 'meaningful' manner, as
     F          indicated in this judgment.

                (iv) The State agencies will ensure that basic civic amenities,
                consistent with the rights to life and dignity of each of the citizens
                in the jhuggies, are available at the site of relocation.
     G
                63. With the above directions, these petitions are allowed.

                64. A certified copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary,
                Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) with the request that wide
     H
SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA                                543
            & ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

      publicity be given to the operative portion and directions of this       A
      judgment in the local language among the residents ofjhuggi clusters
      in the city as well as fo the relocated sites. The DLSA will also
      hold periodical camps in jhuggi clusters and in relocated sites to
      make the residents aware of their rights. A copy of this order be
      also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of National Capital
                                                                               B
      Territory of Delhi, for compliance."

      5. It is also relevant to note the opening paragraph of the judgment,
which reads as follows:-

      "l. The writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the C
      Constitution of India seeking intervention of this Court to
      rehabilitate and relocate the petitioners who were residing at
      various slum clusters in the Capital city to a suitable place and
      providing them alternative land with ownership rights pursuant to
      demolition of their 'jhuggies' (hutments). The subject matter in D
      these four writ petitions revolves around questions of great
      importance, inter alia, right to shelter of the petitioners and those
      represented by them on one hand, and, on the other, slum cluster
      being on 'Right of Way' on wh_ich basis the agencies of the State
      seek to oppose them. Thereafter, all of them were taken up
      together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common E
      judgment."

       6. We feel it also apposite to refer to the opening paragraph of the
writ petition, which reads as follows:-
                                                                               F
       "That the petitioners are filing this Writ Petition on behalf of all
       the residents of New Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster whose jhuggies
       were demolished by the PWD on 05.02.09 on the ground of making
       underpass on road no.13 (Okh\a estate marg) which goes through
       Okhla Phase-I and Phase-II without even ensuring that the poor
       slum dwellers of the jhuggies, who were eligible for rehabilitation/    G
       resettlement, were rehabilitated or relocated on/to some other sites.
       The petitioners, by way of the present Writ Petition, are seeking
       proper resettlement of the residents in accordance with the
       Rehabilitation and Improvement Scheme for Jhuggi Clusters, 2000
                                                                               H
544             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            12017112 S.C.R.



A            framed by the Delhi Government and the Master Plan for Dclhi-
             2021. The jhuggics of the petitioners and the other residents of
             the New Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster were demolished in total
             contravention of their fundamental right of Right to Shelter under
             Article 21 of the Constitution, the International Conventions and
             Principles of Natural Justice. It is further submitted that the said
B
             jhuggies were demolished in absolute violation of the Delhi Govt's
             Rchabilitatio11 & Improvement Scheme-ft)[ Jhuggi Clusters, which
             came into effect from 01.04.2000."

              7. We arc informed that a review was attempted by the respondents
c      and the same was dismissed. Though;a special leave petition was also
      ·filed but the same was withdrawn.

               8. Be that as it may, since the judgment was not complied with in
      its letter and spirit, the writ petitioners approached t11e High Court invoking ·
D     its contempt jurisdiction.

             9. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, has taken a
      view that only the actual affected writ petitioners are entitled to the
      benefits by way of rehabilitation. Paragraphs 12 to 14 contain the relevant
      consic)cration, which read as follows:-
 E

             "12. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
             respective sides. I have also gone through the record. In my
             considered opinion, no doubt there were two sets of persons and
             the writ petition was filed in the nature of public interest litigation.
 F           This is evident from para I of the judgment where the court has
             taken note of the petitioners and the persons to whom they represent
             but while giving the benefit, it has confined the said benefit only to
             the petitioners and not to other persons. This clearly shows that
             the court intended to draw a distinction between the petitioners
             and the non-petitioners, whose names arc given to the court as
G
             annexures to the writ petition.

             13. In my view the use of the word 'petitioners' confines this
             benefit only to the four petitioners and not to any other person

H
 SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA                                  545
             & ORS. ETC. [KURIAN, J.]

       even though the petitioners may intend to refer to the sa~_e.              A
       Moreover, none of the persons, whose names are mentioned in
       the list, have come forward to raise a grievance that they have
       not been considered or allotted an alternative accommodation.

       14. In the light of the aforesaid fact, I feel that the present contempt   B
       petition is totally misconceived and accordingly, the same deserves
       to be dismissed."

      10. Heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the respondents.                                            C

        11. In our view, the High Court went wrong in referring only to
paragraph 62 of the judgment and not to the other relevant considerations
leading to the decision which are contained in the judgment itself, which
we have extracted above. The.whole purpose of paragraph 62 of the                 D
judgment is to lend the benefit of the judgment to the affected persons
whose 11ames have been furnished in the writ petitions in the form of
annexures to the petitions. Paragraphs 63 and 64 in fact makes it very
clear. It is not required that in a public interest litigation all the affected
parties should be petitioners. ·It is a well-accepted principle of class
litigation. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have actually
                                                                                  E
furnished the names of persons who have been identified as the persons
affected. Hence the High Court ought to have extended the benefit to
those persons whose names have also been furnished by way of
annexures to the writ petitions and for whose benefits the High Court
has rendered the judgment dated 11.02.2010. As rightly pointed out by             F
learned Additional Solicitor Gener.ii, the eligibility of the persons referred
to in the Annexures will have to be verified and that is what is precisely
indicated by the Court in direction No.3 to the effect that the benefit
should be available to those eligible persons in terms of the n,~location
policy.
                                                                                  G
       12. The respondents are directed to implement the judgment in
the light of the clarification we have given in this judgment. The needful
be done within a period ofthr~e months from today..

                                                                                  H
546              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017112 S.C.R.


A            13. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.

             -14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

             15. There shall be no orders as to costs.

B

      Devika Gujral                                                Appeals allowed.