|  |  | 

India Top Headlines

SC’s verdict allowed ‘free for all’ unauthorized construction in Delhi: MC | India News


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court-appointed Monitoring Committee (MC) issued a forceful report Thursday in which it severely criticized the SC’s August 14 ruling that clipped its wings and its implementation has led to large-scale cleanup of premises that were sealed for the construction and unauthorized residential creation of an environment of “freedom for all” in the capital.
“Delhi is witnessing frenzy of removal of sealed properties that have unauthorized construction, encroachment, misuse and similar illegal activities by local agencies. In fact, all the work done so far by the MC in compliance with C’s orders to date is All of these actions have naturally created an undesirable ‘free for all’ atmosphere and eroded the trust of law-abiding citizens in complying with rules and regulations regarding all activities of construction, “said the MC.
The SC appointed committee consisting of Bhure Lal, KJ Rao and SP Jhingon said, “All of the MC’s actions to restore public confidence in the rule of law have failed and Delhi dates back to the pre-2006 days in the that the adherence to the established rules and regulations has been completely given. MC is a mere spectator that all these irregularities are perpetuated with impunity, since the CS in its recent orders has questioned and denied almost all the actions taken by the MC regarding the sealing of infringing facilities / properties. ”
Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Union Ministry of Urban Development and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), strongly disagreed with Bhure Lal’s speech led by MC at SC’s trial. “The SC had established the MC to verify the illegal use of residential properties for commercial use. The MC did a good job for some time, but then unilaterally expanded its powers and began sealing properties on the grounds that its plan was not approved. On August 14, SC The sentence was handed down by a court of three judges after a long hearing and considering all the documents. Now a body of three private persons comes to court and says that SC is wrong, “he said.
For municipal corporations, the main defender Sanjiv Sen supported the SG and said that the SC in its judgment of August 14 had clearly established that the MC had power only to verify the misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes.
A court consisting of Chief Justice SA Bobde, AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian sought the opinion of the amicus curiae and chief defender Ranjit Kumar, who has continuously assisted the court in the matter for more than two decades. Kumar said the report needs to be considered in light of the August 14 ruling. Kumar also sought to be relieved of the arduous task of amicus curiae. At his request, the SC appointed chief lawyer Guru Krishna Kumar as amicus.
The MC in his report said that after the August 14 ruling “even the properties sealed under the MC’s orders are being desired at will by the local south / east / north bodies of the Delhi Municipal Corporations / Municipal Council from New Delhi without any reference to the MC, as ordered by the SC on August 27. ”
On August 14, a court of three judges of the SC had said: “It is clear from the different orders issued by this Court at all times and from the various reports of the MC that it was never authorized by this Court to take action against the premises residential properties that were not used for commercial purposes. It was designed only to verify the misuse of residential properties for commercial purposes. Later, this Court ordered that the MC also examine the matter of “usurpation of public lands and” unauthorized colonies’ that have arisen on public land and that were totally unauthorized without penalty. At no time, this Court had empowered the MC to act visàvis purely residential premises “.
The court had criticized the MC for exceeding his writing and said: “It would not be appropriate for the MC to usurp legal powers and act beyond the authority conferred by the Court. The MC could not have sealed the residential premises, which were not improperly used for commercial purposes, as is done in Report No. 149, nor could it have directed the demolition of those residential properties. ”

Times of India