Supreme Court order causing de-sealing, 'free for all' in Delhi: Panel

Supreme Court order causing de-sealing, ‘free for all’ in Delhi: Panel

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court-appointed monitoring committee for checking illegal use of residential properties for commercial use in the city on Thursday submitted a hard-hitting report, severely criticising the court’s August 14 judgment that clipped its wings. The ruling led to largescale de-sealing of buildings that had been sealed for unauthorised construction, resulting in a “free for all” in the capital, the panel stated.

“All work so far undertaken by the committee… till date is being undone. Delhi is going back to the pre-2006 days wherein, adherence to rules and regulations have been given a complete go by,” said the panel comprising Bhure Lal (who till recently headed the SC mandated EPCA), K J Rao and S P Jhingon.

“Delhi is witnessing frantic activity of… encroachment, misuse and such allied illegal activities (carried out) by the local bodies, the monitoring committee said. “All these actions have eroded the confidence of law-abiding citizens in complying with rules and regulations with respect to all building activities,” the panel said.

“The monitoring committee is a mere bystander to all these irregularities being perpetuated with impunity as the SC in its recent orders has questioned and negated almost all actions taken by the monitoring committee with respect to the sealing of offending premises/properties,” the panel added.

Appearing for the urban development ministry and the Delhi Development Authority, solicitor general Tushar Mehta took strong exception to the monitoring committee criticising the SC judgment. “The SC had set up the monitoring committee for checking illegal use of residential properties for commercial use. The monitoring committee did good work for some time but later, unilaterally expanded its powers and started sealing properties on the ground that its plan was not approved. The SC’s August 14 judgment was given by a three-judge bench after lengthy hearing and considering all documents. Now, a three-member body of private persons comes to the court and says the SC is wrong,” he said.

For the municipal corporations, senior advocate Sanjiv Sen supported the SG and said the SC had in its August 14 judgment clearly laid down that the monitoring committee had powers only to check misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought the opinion of amicus curiae and senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who has continuously assisted the court in the matter for over two decades. Kumar said the report needed consideration in light of the August 14 judgment. Kumar also sought to be relieved from the task of amicus curiae. On his request, the SC appointed senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar as amicus.

In its report, the monitoring committee said after the August 14 judgment, “even properties sealed as per the orders of the committee are being de-sealed at will by the local bodies south/east/north Delhi Municipal Corporations/New Delhi Municipal Council without any reference to the monitoring committee, as ordered by the SC on August 27”.

On August 14, a three-judge SC bench had said, “It is apparent from the various orders passed by this court from time to time and from the various reports of the monitoring committee that it was never authorised by this court to take action against residential premises that were not being used for commercial purposes. It was appointed only to check the misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes. After that, this court directed that the monitoring committee should also look into the matter of ‘encroachment on public land’ and ‘unauthorised colonies’ that have come up on public land and were wholly unauthorised without sanction. At no point in time this court had empowered the monitoring committee to act vis-a-vis to purely residential premises.”

The bench had castigated the committee for exceeding its brief and said, “It would not be appropriate for the monitoring committee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authority conferred upon it by the court. The monitoring committee could not have sealed residential premises which were not misused for commercial purpose, as done vide Report No.149, nor could it have directed demolition of those residential properties.”