M C MEHTA Vs. UNIAN OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two applications have been filed one - on behalf of Union of India (I. A. No.1995) and other on behalf of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M. C. D. ). The substantial prayers made in the two applications are same. The applicants pray that there are about 2500 establishments comprising traders and professionals who had given their undertakings but are covered under the notifications dated 7th september, 2006 and 15th September, 2006 and, thus, they may be permitted to continue with their activities in the same manner as other establishments have been permitted in terms of the order of 29th September, 2006. However, our order dated 29th September, 2006 specifically mentions as to how the cases of those who gave undertakings were different. It is also so mentioned in the order dated 6th november, 2006.

(2.) The application filed by M. C. D. in para 5 states that several big establishments like, huge showrooms, shopping malls, fitness centres, large office spaces, automobile showrooms, etc. have been sealed. These include, Haldiram, CTC plaza, Thapar House, Bata Showroom, Pulse-Impulse Fitness Centre, Yamaha showroom, office of Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), rana Automobile, Nirmal Furnishing, IGP Mall, Regency Guest House, Sita Play school, Kangaroo Kids, Shehnaz Hussain Beauty Products Shop, Shopping arcades which house offices, Jewellery Showrooms, Boutiques, etc. We have also perused the 12th Report of the Monitoring Committee dated 14th November, 2006. Para 5 thereof reads as under:

(3.) To consider the relief sought for in these applications in respect of these 25000 establishments above referred, we permit them to inform the Monitoring committee that in terms of their undertakings they have stopped the misuser. If such information is given, the Monitoring Committee, for the present, shall not resort to disconnection of other amenities or sealing of their premises. Further, the monitoring Committee may conduct, if necessary, a random check and thereafter report to this Court by 20th November, 2006, on consideration of the report of the monitoring Committee the Court would further hear the learned Counsel and consider whether such traders for the present can be temporarily relieved of their undertakings so as to place them at par with others in terms of the orders dated 29th september, 2006 and 18th October, 2006. This will also be applicable in respect to other two categories, viz. , onewho have already shutdown their premises and two, whose premises have been sealed as also those who have stopped the misuser in terms of undertaking. The Monitoring Committee may also mention particular establishments which, in its opinion, may not be granted any temporary relief having regard to the larger public interest and the extensive nature of the commercial activity carried upon.