M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & Ors.

Judgment

A B M.C. MEHTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 7, 2004 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Environmental Law: C Pollution-Industries located in residential and non-conforming areas in Delhi contrary to the Master Plan and law-Directions by Supreme Court in 1999 to close or shift such industries out of Delhi by 31.12.1999- Application by State Government seeking time and for regularisation of industries where concentration of industry is 70% or more in a residential area (INS/TU Regularisation)-Thereafter, no steps were taken to comply D with the orders-Held, on the basis of the materials on record and the inactions and the casual approach of the State Government and various Government authorities, such INSITU regularisation cannot be permitted as it has taken into account the pollution angle-Directions issued to close down various categories of industries with time frame-Delhi Development E Act, !957-Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957-National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985-Constitution of India-Articles 21 & 243W A large number of hazardous and noxious industries and heavy F and large industries (categories A to F) came into existence in residential and non-conforming areas of the Delhi State contrary to the Master Plan and Zonal Plan of the State. Public interest litigation petitions were filed before Supreme Court challenging the existence of such industries in violation of the Delhi Master Plan under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and G other statutory provisions. This Court passed orders from time to time over a decade directing various categories of industries situated in residential/ non-conforming areas to be shifted out of Delhi. Despite the directions, the State Government failed to take any action and a large number of industries continued to be operated in residential/non- H conforming areas in violation of law. 504 M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 505 This Court issued an order on 8.9.1999 directing the State A Government to close down all the industries situated in residential areas by 31.12.1999. On 10.12.1999, the State Government filed an application seeking extension of time to close down the industries till March 2004 and seeking INSITU regularisation of industrial units where concentration of industry is 70% or more in a residential area. B The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, National Regional Board and the Central Pollution Control Board vehemently opposed the continued unauthorised use for industrial activity of residential/non conforming areas and the proposal of INSITU regularisation. The National Regional Board contended that such industries should be immediately closed down or shifted; that such regularisation would defeat the very purpose of the National Capital Region Board Act, 1985 under which NCR was established to decongest the city of ~L The Central Pollution Control Board contended that the regularisation would further result in air and water pollution and would also affect the underground water. Disposing the matters, the Court c D E HELD : 1.1. INSITU regularisation cannot be done if it results in violation of right of life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The question will have to be considered not only from the F angle of those who have set up industrial units in violation of the Master Plan but also who are residents and using their premises as allowed by law. Further, the regularisation affects not only the remaining 30% residents of the areas wherein regularisation may be in contemplation but has effect on the entire area, particularly with respect to infrastructure available. (518-G-H; 519-A) G

1.2 The facts demonstrate that the State Government and the Delhi Development Authority have been wholly remiss of all its functions, duties and obligations. The Central Government, for the reasons which are not far to seek, has been shifting its stand. There H 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A is no plausible answer to the question as to why in the meanwhile the illegality should conti1rne without any action. In any case, as at present there is no regularisation. The industrial activities in residential/ non conforming zones are wholly illegal. The illegal. industrialisation in residential/non-conforming area commenced and has continued and B the Authority, the Governments and their agencies have been totally negligent in discharge of the functions and obligations under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. [520-F-H; 521-A, F)

1.3. Dealing with the question of relocation of non-conforming C industries and the setting up of the industrial estate in Delhi, in the light of the facts brought before the Court, it is not open to the State Government to argue that for want of acquisition of the land, the industrial estates could not be developed. They had themselves written to DDA not to develop any new industrial estate in the Union Territory of Delhi. The State Government has been repeatedly taking time from D the Court for the shifting of the offending industrial activity. If it was not the responsibility of the State Government to shift the industry, what was the purpose of filing an Application seeking extension of time upto March 2004 and for seeking modification of the order dated 8.9.1999 whereunder the industries were directed to be closed by E 31.12.1999. In this situation, there is no reason why those uaits which have come up after 31.12.1999 shall not be closed and sternly dealt with. The Court is unable to find any equity in favour of such violators of law. The regularisation would also result in making the concept of NCR non-functional and inoperative. (521-G-H; 524-B-FJ F

2.1 The material on record shows that National Capital Regional Planning Board has been taking initiative to encourage the shifting of the industries to National Capital Region. It does not however, appear that any significant interest was shown by the industry. The problems are not insurmountable and can be sorted out. There is no obligation G to provide alternative plots to those who illegally 'commenced industrial activity. It is a matter for Government to decide if it wants to provide alternative industrial plots to those who illegally commenced that activity but that cannot further delay the closing of continuing illegal industrial activity. The lack of action and initiative by the authorities H is the main reason for the industry merrily continuing illegal activity. M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 507 There is total lack of enforcement of law by the concerned authorities. A (528-E-H; 529-A-BJ

2.2 An illegality would not become a legality on inaction or connivance of the Government authorities. There cannot be any doubt that non-conforming industrial activities could not have commenced or B continued at such a large scale in the capital of the country if the Government and the concerned authorities had performed their functions and obligations under various statutes. But such a situation cannot be permitted to continue for ever so as to reach a point of no return, where the chaotic situation in city has already reached. The C lawbreakers, namely, the industries cannot be absolved of the illegalities only on the ground of inaction by the authorities. From the facts, it is evident that a casual approach was adopted in recommending INSITU regularisation. (529-D-F; 530-E)

#3. The growth of illegal manufacturing activity in residential D areas has been without any check and hindrance from the authorities. The manner in which such large scale violations have commenced and continued leaves no manner of doubt that it was not possible without the connivance of those who are required to ensure compliance of law and reasons are obvious. Such activities result in putting on extra load E on infrastructures. The entire planning has gone totally haywire. The law abiders are sufferers. All this has happened at the cost of health and decent living of the residents of the city violating their constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The lawmakers repose confidence in the authorities that they will ensure F implementation of the laws made by them. If the authorities breach that confidence and act in dereliction of their duties, then the plea that the observance of law will now have an adverse effect on the industry or the workers cannot be allowed. Within the framework of Jaw, keeping in view the norms of environment, health and safety, the Government and its agencies, if there was genuine will, could help the G industry .and workers by relocating industries by taking appropriate steps in the last about" 15 years. [538-E-H; 539-A)