SC relief for Delhi traders from sealing for now

In a temporary relief for Delhi traders facing the sealing threat, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to order civic agencies to cooperate with the sealing drive pending the amendments to be carried out to the Master Plan of Delhi 2021. The SC said since the issue of amendments to the Master Plan is under consideration of another Bench of the apex court that is likely to hear it on July 11, passing any order at this stage will not be appropriate.

The SC-appointed Monitoring Committee had complained about non-cooperation by civic agencies in implementing the sealing orders. The Committee, through senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae, pointed out that on May 15, the apex court allowed the Monitoring Committee to carry on with the sealing drive.

This order was violated last week when South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) officials refused to carry out sealing of certain unauthorised constructions on the orders of the Committee. The officials cited the pending amendments to the MPD 2021 as the reason for not carrying out sealing activity. Instructions to stop sealing had been issued to these officials from the top brass, the SDMC officials claimed.

Dealing with the Committee’s report, the Vacation Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Deepak Gupta said that the apex court on May 15 had lifted the stay on carrying out amendments to the Master Plan on an application moved by the Centre. The court had on that date directed the Monitoring Committee to respond to the application and the matter is to be heard next on July 11.

The Bench said, “The other Bench dealing with the case is aware of the intricacies of the case as they may have something in mind.” Responding to the Committee’s request seeking cooperation from civic agencies in carrying out sealing drive, the Bench said, “We do not know what is to happen on the next date of hearing. What if the application is allowed and the stretches proposed to be given relief are notified as exempted from sealing…If the other Bench has kept the matter pending, why should the court, at this juncture change the character of the (previous) order.”

Citing this reason, the Bench refused to pass any orders. It, however, allowed the Committee to approach it soon after the reopening of court on July 2 for obtaining any urgent orders.