(Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
M.C. Mehta ______________________________________ Petitioner;
v.
Union of India and Others ________________________ Respondent(s).
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985, decided on December 6, 2018
(In Re.: Sealing Issue)
(1) Report No. 133 & 142 Submitted by Monitoring Committee (2) Report No. 134 Submitted by Monitoring Committee (3) Report No. 140 Submitted by Monitoring Committee (4) Report No. 141 Submitted by Monitoring Committee Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
REPORT NO. 133 dated 22.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY MONITORING COMMITTEE
1. No further orders are required to be passed in this Report.
2. Report No. 133 stands closed.
REPORT NO. 142 dated 04.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY MONITORING COMMITTEE
3. It is stated in the Report given by the Monitoring Committee that the L&DO had initially given 63 files for temporary de-sealing and execution of supplementary lease deeds and thereafter another 27 files were given on 30.11.2018. The view of the Monitoring Committee is that the process of giving files in batches may continue instead of de-sealing all the 400 properties in question in Andha Mughal, Motia Khan, Sarai Rohilla and Amar Colony all at once. From the Report, it appears that the L&DO is agreeable to the process of de-sealing on a block-wise basis.
4. It is made clear that any person who applies for de-sealing or objects to the sealing must do so on an affidavit. All applications should be supported by an appropriate affidavit.
5. It is further stated in the Report that despite notice of violations in four colonies mentioned above, steps have not been taken by the L&DO to seal the tenements in compliance with the directions given by this Court on 02.11.20181.
6. The L&DO is directed to take steps to seal the tenements that are either being misused from residential to commercial use or having encroachments and unauthorized constructions in terms of the compilation prepared by the L&DO.
7. Report No. 142 stands closed.
REPORT NO. 134 dated 01.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY MONITORING COMMITTEE
8. Despite our order dated 02.11.20181 granting 15 days time to the SDMC to respond to the Report of the Monitoring Committee, the response was not filed within 15 days.
9. One last opportunity is granted. It is stated that response is ready and will be filed within two days. The Registry will accept the response only upon receipt of costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only). The amount be deposited with the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.
10. In the meanwhile, we make it absolutely clear to the SDMC that it has to act in accordance with law. If any circulars/byelaws issued by the Municipal Corporations are contrary to the law, it will be the sole responsibility of the SDMC in this regard.
11. List the matter in the second week of January, 2019.
REPORT NO. 140 dated 27.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY MONITORING COMMITTEE
12. No further orders are required to be passed in this Report.
13. The Report stands closed.
Report No. 141 dated 03.12.2018
14. The Report of the Monitoring Committee indicates that the Chairman of the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) is unfortunately not rendering due assistance to the Monitoring Committee thereby causing great inconvenience to the Monitoring Committee.
15. It is made clear to the Chairman of the NDMC that the Monitoring Committee has been established under the directions of this Court and if any inconvenience is caused to the Monitoring Committee, it is indirectly causing inconvenience to this Court. The Chairman of the NDMC ought not to cause any inconvenience to this Court but should comply with the directions and render all necessary assistance to the Monitoring Committee as mentioned in Report No. 141.
16. Mr. Yoginder Handoo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NDMC will inform the Chairman, NDMC of today’s proceedings.
17. List Report No. 141 on 10th December, 2018.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
M.C. Mehta.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Union of India & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(In RE.: SEALING ISSUE)
(5) IA NO. 145264/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS ON B/O AMIT JIDANI AND ANR.)
(9) IA NOS 169756 AND 169758/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON B/O BALAJI MOTELS PVT. LTD.)
(10) IA NOS 169784 AND 169786/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON AAA HOSPITALITY)
(11) IA NOS 169804 AND 169805/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON B/O S.R. MOTEL AND RESORT)
(12) IA NOS 169794 AND 169796/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON B/O LAVANYA CEREMONIAL PVT. LTD. AND ORS.)
(13) IA NOS 169815 AND 169817/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON B/O FIVE SPICE MERRIMENT PVT. LTD. AND ANR.)
Date : 06-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate (A.C.)
Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Adv.
DDA Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Oberoi, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Bansal, Adv.
NCT of Delhi Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate
Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Mahima M. Shroff, Adv.
MCD Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadsva, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.
Mr. Soumo Palit, Adv.
Mr. Syed Zafar Husain, Adv.
Mr. B.C. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Zaid Ali Subzposh, Adv.
NDMC Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar, Adv.
CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv.
145264 Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Advocate
Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv.
Mr. Johnson Subba, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv.
169804&169815 Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv.
Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Adv.
149100 Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocate
Mr. Vikal P. Mudgal, Adv.
141629 Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Gilia, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, Advocate
158060 Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amir Singh Pasrech, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Kalyan Aramba, Adv.
Mr. Virender Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sanewal, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Bery, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate
169756, 169784 Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv.
169794 Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Kr. Virmani, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
IA NO. 145264/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS ON B/O AMIT JIDANI AND ANR.)
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties including learned amicus curiae.
19. The submissions made and the affidavits filed disclose a very sorry and sad state of affairs which, prima facie, appears to be contrary to public interest and loaded in favour of the rich and powerful.
20. The applicant (Amit Jidani), owner of a Motel by the name of Blue Sapphire, carries on, inter alia, business of providing space for weddings and other functions. In the process, pandals are erected covering about 5000 sq.m.
21. Way back in March, 2016, some information was sought for from M/s. Blue Sapphire by the concerned Municipal Corporation, but that information has not been supplied till today even though the requisition made stated that the information was required most urgently.
22. In the meanwhile, it is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that an amount of Rs. one crore has been deposited with the concerned Municipal Corporation. This is an indication of the amount of money involved in carrying on this activity.
23. Today, during the course of submissions, we have been informed that a huge quantity of water roughly about one lakh litre is required by the applicant for carrying on its business activities.
24. The Fire Safety Department has directed the applicant to make arrangements for another 25,000 litres.
25. We are also told that there are hundreds of Motels and Farm Houses carrying out similar activities with varying degree of coverage of pandals. One can only imagine the amount of water required for carrying on the functions by the applicant and others similarly placed.
26. We are mentioning this fact in the context of water shortage in Delhi and an application having been moved in this Court today by the NCT of Delhi (in another case) requiring the State of Haryana to release large quantity of water because of shortage of water in Delhi.
27. That apart, we also find that tons of food is served in these functions including weddings and a large quantity of food goes waste. We are mentioning this in the context of an unconfirmed report that had appeared in one newspaper sometime back that three girls starved to death in Delhi.
28. In other words, there is a huge amount of mismanagement of scarce water and wastage of food. Surely, no one can say that this waste is in public interest.
29. The attitude of the State and the authorities under the State including the Municipal Corporation appears to be in favour of the Motels and Farm House owners much to the detriment of public interest.
30. In our view, it is high time that the authorities concerned with governance issues in Delhi give precedence to public interest rather than commercial and financial interest of owners of Motels and Farm Houses and other similar organizations.
31. It is a matter of common knowledge that the availability of drinking water and availability of food is a natural human right and this must be respected by who ever is concerned with governance in Delhi.
32. To further look into the matter and see whether the State is thinking on these lines, we would require the presence of Chief Secretary of Delhi on Tuesday, 11th December, 2018 so that appropriate directions can be passed. It should be appreciated that money is not everything in life.
33. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the requirements for fire safety communicated by a letter dated 29th November, 2018 will be complied with in the next couple of days.
34. We expect full compliance with the directions given by 10th December, 2018.
35. We may mention that since there are hundreds of Motels and Farm Houses carrying out similar activities, it becomes virtually impossible for the Delhi Fire Service and other authorities to go on and inspecting premises to see whether the laws are being complied with. This puts an enormous strain on the resources much again to the detriment of the public interest.
36. However, since learned counsel for the applicant says that the inspection may be carried out, we direct that the inspection should be carried out by the Delhi Fire Service to ascertain compliance of the letter dated 29th November, 2018 within this week. The applicant will deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs with the Delhi Fire Service within 24 hours so that the inspection can be carried out.
37. List the matter on 11th December, 2018.
IA NOS 169756 AND 169758/2018, 169784 AND 169786/2018, 169804 AND 169805/2018, 169794 AND 169796/2018, 169815 AND 169817/2018
38. Exemption from filing O.T. granted.
39. List the applications on 11th December, 2018 along with IA NO. 145264/2018.
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
M.C. Mehta ______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Ors __________________________ Respondent(s)
(In RE.: SEALING ISSUE)
(8) IA NOS. 158060/2018 (APPLNS. FOR DIRECTIONS ON B/O BIRD TRAVELS (P) LTD. AND ANR. ALONGWITH REPORT NOS. 137 AND 138 SUBMITTED BY MONITORING COMMITTEE)
Date : 06-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate (A.C.)
Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Adv.
DDA Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Oberoi, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Bansal, Adv.
NCT of Delhi Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate
Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Mahima M. Shroff, Adv.
MCD Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadsva, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.
Mr. Soumo Palit, Adv.
Mr. Syed Zafar Husain, Adv.
Mr. B.C. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Zaid Ali Subzposh, Adv.
NDMC Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar, Adv.
CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv.
158060 Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amir Singh Pasrech, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Kalyan Aramba, Adv.
Mr. Virender Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Sanewal, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Bery, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, Advocate
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
40. Learned counsel for the applicant says that a wall which is at least 6 feet in height will be constructed demarcating the two plots.
41. We may note that the submission of learned amicus curiae is that there are in fact three plots and not two plots.
42. Be that as it may, demarcation of two plots should be carried out.
43. The Monitoring Committee has also reported that four numbers of structural/architectural walls are constructed in the Green Belt which is a prohibited activity under the Sanctioned Building Plan.
44. Learned counsel for the applicant states, on instructions, that he will demolish these structural/architectural constructions. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant is that these are pergola walls.
45. List the application in the month of January, 2019.
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
M.C. Mehta _______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Ors _____________________________ Respondent(s)
(In RE.: SEALING ISSUE)
(6) IA NO. 149100/2018 (APPLN. FOR DIRECTIONS ON B/O MR. MOHAN LAL SINGLA AND OTHERS)
Date : 06-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate (A.C.)
Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Adv.
DDA Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Oberoi, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Bansal, Adv.
NCT of Delhi Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate
Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Mahima M. Shroff, Adv.
MCD Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadsva, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.
Mr. Soumo Palit, Adv.
Mr. Syed Zafar Husain, Adv.
Mr. B.C. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Zaid Ali Subzposh, Adv.
NDMC Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar, Adv.
CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv.
149100 Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Advocate
Mr. Vikal P. Mudgal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
46. Nothing further remains in this application which is accordingly disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
M.C. Mehta.….Petitioner(s)
v.
Union of India & Ors.….Respondent(s)
(In RE.: SEALING ISSUE)
(7) IA NO. 141629/2018 (APPEAL AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY REGISTRAR (J-I) ON B/O RAKESH MUNJAL)
Date : 06-12-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate (A.C.)
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Advocate (A.C.)
Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Adv.
Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s)
UOI Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Kaul, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Makker, Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocate
Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Rachna Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Adv.
DDA Ms. Garima Prasad, Adv.
Mr. G.S. Oberoi, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Bansal, Adv.
NCT of Delhi Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, Advocate
Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Mahima M. Shroff, Adv.
MCD Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadsva, Adv.
Mr. Sayan Ray, Adv.
Mr. Soumo Palit, Adv.
Mr. Syed Zafar Husain, Adv.
Mr. B.C. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Zaid Ali Subzposh, Adv.
NDMC Mr. Yoginder Handoo, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhatnagar, Adv.
CPCB Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv.
Mr. Bikash Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Alok Gupta, Adv.
141629 Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Gilia, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, Advocate
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
47. Appeal against the Registrar’s order (IA No. 141629/2018) is allowed.
48. Learned counsel for the applicant says that he will approach the Monitoring Committee within a week.
49. According, IA Nos. 103712 and 103716/2018 are disposed of.
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 4677/1985
M.C. Mehta _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Ors ___________________________ Respondent(s)
In Re: Kant Enclave Matters
Date : 06-12-2018 This matter was mentioned today.
(Before Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta and Hemant Gupta, JJ.)
Mentioned By : Mr. Anil Grover, AAG
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
50. Upon being mentioned, the matter is taken on Board.
51. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State of Haryana that there is difficulty in contacting 33 affected house owners. He says that under these circumstances, it might be more appropriate if the amount is directed to be deposited by this Court in the Registry. The amount is Rs. 16.5 crores.
52. Liberty is granted to the State of Haryana to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court on or before 10.12.2018.
———
1 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985, order dated 2-11-2018 (SC)
