Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the various orders passed in the year 1995, this Court noticed that a large number of industries were located in residential/non-conforming areas in violation of the Delhi Master Plan formulated under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short, 'DD Act), Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short, 'DMC' Act) and other statutory provisions. Noticing that the Master Plan stipulates setting up of industries only in conforming areas, i.e., the industrial areas earmarked for that purpose, it was indicated that the industries in non-conforming areas have to stop functioning. The first concern of the Court was to stop the functioning of 'H' category industries, since most of it were discharging highly toxic affluent. It was noticed that as per the affidavit filed by Mr. D.S. Negi, Secretary (Environment), Government of Delhi, it was estimated that there were 93, 000 industries which were operating in Delhi and majority of these were in non-conforming use zones. Public notices by the Government invited all industries operating in non-conforming use zone to give option to shift to available industrial plots in the industrial estates. The response from the industry was very poor. The industries operating in Delhi were called upon by issue of public notices in newspapers to furnish information in respect of the product manufactured, activity carried on, area, size, number of persons employed, power load, year of commencement etc. Out of 93, 000 industries, only 513 industries and 382 persons responded. It was noticed that MCD was granting licences and registering various industrial units in non-conforming areas and permitting the industries to be set up in residential areas. Naturally, a surprise was expressed by this Court that on the one hand, the Court was issuing orders to reallocate the existing industries that were operating in the residential/non-conforming areas and on the other hand MCD was permitting setting up of new industries in residential areas. According to the MCD, it was done under the directions of the State Government. The MCD was directed not to register or grant licence to any industry in the non-conforming/residential area.

In exercise of power under Section 10 of the NCR Act, the Government of India has prepared a Regional Plan - 2001 for National Capital Region as approved by the National Capital Region Planning Board constituted under Section 3(1) of the NCR Act. Besides others, the Union Minister for Works and Housing as Chairman of the Board, the Chief Minister of Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi are members of the said Board. Regional Plan - 2001 recognises the unprecedented growth of Delhi and notices that the planned growth of Delhi is possible only in a regional context. In fact, the need for regional approach was felt as early as 1959 when the draft Master Plan of 1962 recommended that a statutory National Capital Region Planning Board should be set up for ensuring balanced and harmonized development of the Region.

"The chaotic situation existing today would not have developed had the authorities carried out their duties and taken steps to develop industrial areas as provided for in the MPD-62 as well as the MPD-2001. For the reasons best known to the authorities, the planned development of Delhi was never undertaken. On the other hand, they were busy in granting ad hoc licenses for non-conforming areas, electricity connections, water connections, collecting electricity, water, property tax at commercial rates; collection of Sales Tax and Excise from these industries, which were coming up. Had the concerned authorities discharged their duties casted upon them by the two Master Plans, the legal and statutory document for the planned development of Delhi to which they were duty bound to perhaps the situation, which Delhi is in today, would not have arisen."

In this very matter, dealing with the industries of 'H' category which now stand shifted pursuant to the order of this Court, it is pertinent to note what a three Judge Bench of which one of us (B.N. Agrawal, J.) was a member said in relation to entrepreneurial failure and total apathy non-concern for social good and benefit by the authorities as under :

"The issues are long pending - the issues are urgent since the entire society is impaired - no exception can be taken to the legal battles involved in an adversarial litigation - this is not one such instance : it is a true public interest litigation for the protection of the society and to avoid a deliberate peril arising out of entrepreneurial failure and total apathy and non-concern for social good and benefit. The Delhi Development Act of 1957 envisaged preparation of a Master Plan for Delhi with a definite statutory direction to define various zones into which Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development and the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used and the stages by which such development shall be carried out. As a matter of fact the Master Plan came into existence in 1962 and 'H' category industries ought to have shifted out of the area specified therein by 1962 itself. Then came the Master Plan of 1990 to combat the existing situation with a specified period of shifting within three years i.e. there was an obligation on the 'H' category industries to shift and relocate in terms of the Master Plan by the year 1993 and the social activist by reason of the failure of the entrepreneurs, moved this Court in 1995 whereupon, after allowing all possible opportunities to all entrepreneurs and upon assessment of the situation through the appointments of commissions and obtaining various reports on these aspects, passed the order on 10-5-1996 {M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1996) 4 SCC 351]} which has till date not been complied with - indeed a sorry state of affairs and a total neglect and apathy towards the society, new and novel submissions are advanced as in any adversarial litigation but unfortunately as noticed above it is too late in the day to contend otherwise, apart from what the order contains as of 10-5-1996 {M. C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1996) 4 SCC 351)]}."