SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal and Mr. D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

I.A.No. 22 in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 4677/1985. D/d. 17.3.2005.

With

I.A.No. 1816 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1874 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A. No. 3 in W.P.(Civil) No. 98/2000, I.A. No. 1871 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1872 in I.A.No. 22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1875 in I.A.No. 22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1880 in I.A.No. 22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1881 in I.A.No.22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985, I.A.No. 1884 in I.A.No. 22 in W.P.(Civil) No. 4677/1985

M.C. Mehta - Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioners/Applicants :- Mr. Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.), Mr. M.C. Mehta-in-person, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1816 :- Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1874 :- Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 3 :- Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1871-72 :- Mr. H.M. Singh, Ms. Shabana Saifi, Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocates.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1875 :- Mr. A. Guneshwar Sharma, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1880-81 :- Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Advocate.

For the Petitioners/Applicants In IA 1884 :- Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate.

For the CPCB :- Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.

For the MCD :- Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Mrs. Indra Sawhney, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Advocates.

For UOI./Min. of Social Justice :- Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Advocate

For the NCT, Delhi :- Mr. Ashok Bhan, Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocate.

For the State of U.P. :- Mr. Kamlendra Misra, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advocates.

For the D.D.A. :- Mr. V.B. Saharya, M/s. Saharya & Co., Advocates.

For the DPCC & DSIDC :- Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Mrs. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Advocates.

For the Min. of Envn. :- Mr. Rajeev Dutta, Mr. Vikas Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.

For the NCR Plng. Board :- Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Mr. B.V.B. Das, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Mr. S.N. Terdol, Mr. Suresh C. Tripathi, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.

Commercialization of residential areas - Progress reports was to state the offending industrial units in the areas falling in the category of INSITU regularizations - Report not clear on certain issues - Matters directed to be listed for hearing.

[Paras 3, 4 and 5]

Case Referred :-

D. Bhowmick v. Delhi Development Authority, Civil Appeal No.5413 of 2002.

ORDER

1. We have gone through the 3rd and 4th Progress Reports submitted by the Monitoring Committee.

2. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, submits that para 8 of the 3rd Report gives no details as to the industries which may have been closed down despite the query of this Court in the order dated 30th November, 2004 that the report shall state the offending industrial units in the areas falling in the category of INSITU regularization. It is also pointed out that it is not clear as to what is intended to be conveyed by use of expression 'industrial concentration' in para 8 of the Report while dealing with the issue of INSITU regularization. Learned counsel also seeks to challenge the expansion of the list of house-hold industries as arbitrary. It is further contended that this aspect is intimately connected with the issue of commercialisation of residential areas, change of use of industrial areas for non-industrial purposes.

3. It is expedient, and all learned counsel appearing also submit, that while dealing with the issues arising out of the 3rd and 4th Progress Reports and the issues as raised by the learned Amicus Curiae, it may be necessary to hear and decide the aspect of commercialisation of residential areas as well which was earlier deferred. Further, it is pointed out that Civil Appeal No.5413 of 2002 (D. Bhowmick & Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority & Ors.) and other connected appeals arising out of the same judgment of the Delhi High Court holding about the absence of power of sealing in respect of unauthorized construction or misuse shall also be taken up for hearing along with these matters.

4. We direct that all the matters shall be listed for hearing. The particulars of these matters shall be supplied to the Registry by learned Amicus Curiae, within one week after reopening of the Courts after Holi vacation.

5. Reply to I.As.1890, 1881, 1884, 1871, 1872, 1875, 1874 shall be filed by the State Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi within three weeks.

6. All the matters shall be listed for hearing in the third week of April, 2005 on a non-miscellaneous day.

.