Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed as a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) seeking directions from this Court to be issued to respondents in relation to inter alia (i) conducting a survey in order to identify unauthorized and illegal construction in the Azad Market, Delhi (‘the Subject Area’); and (ii) to take action against such properties situated in the Subject Area. The Division Bench of Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.*, and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., opined that the grievance raised by petitioner had been sufficiently addressed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) through the considerable efforts it had made in relation to clearing unauthorized and illegal construction in the Subject Area. However, the Court opined that it could not turn a blind eye towards any potential violations of Fire Norms, and accordingly directed the MCD and the Delhi Fire Services to ensure scrupulous and rigorous enforcement of the Fire Norms pertaining to premises specified under Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Service Rules, 2010 (‘the Delhi Fire Rules’).
Petitioner had brought to the notice of this Court the presence of illegal and unauthorized constructions situated in the Subject Area (‘the Subject Properties’). Petitioner stated the Subject Properties had been constructed in contravention to the Unified Building Bye Laws, 2016 (‘UBBL 2016’); the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (‘the Act’); and other building laws in vogue including inter alia the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (‘MPD 2021’). It was further submitted that the Subject Properties had been constructed and were being occupied without obtaining an Occupancy Certificates (‘OCs’) and/or necessary permissions under the Delhi Fire Safety Act, 2007 (‘the Delhi Fire Act’) read with the Delhi Fire Rules.
The Court noted the instances of fire accidents wherein due to flagrant violations of Fire Norms; precious lives of innocent persons were lost. Notice was issued on 26-05-2022 and the MCD filed a status report on 02-07-2022 (‘the MCD Status Report’), as per which the MCD took action against illegal and unauthorized construction in the vicinity of the Subject Area which included inter alia (i) sealing action under Section 345A of the Act qua approximately 200 identified points; (ii) booking of approximately 30 properties situated in the vicinity of the Subject Area under Sections 343 and 344 of the Act; and (iii) consequently, demolition of certain illegal and unauthorized construction as more particularly identified under the MCD Status Report were also carried out.
The Court opined that the grievance raised by petitioner had been sufficiently addressed by the MCD through the considerable efforts it had made in relation to clearing unauthorized and illegal construction in the Subject Area. However, the Court opined that it could not turn a blind eye towards any potential violations of Fire Norms, accordingly the MCD and the Delhi Fire Services were directed to ensure scrupulous and rigorous enforcement of the Fire Norms pertaining to premises specified under Rule 27 of the Delhi Fire Rules.
The Court further directed that the MCD should conduct regular monitoring of the Subject Area to ensure that persons found violating the Fire Norms were promptly identified and referred to the Fire Prevention Wing under Rule 34 of the Delhi Fire Rules. Further, in the future if stray individual cases of unauthorized and illegal construction were found dotting the Subject Area, petitioner might approach the Special Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India (‘the STF’) as it was empowered with the responsibility to look into the matters and/or complaints concerning illegal constructions, encroachment on public land/streets, pedestrian streets etc. and take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
[Azad Market Residents Welfare Association v. Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7115, decided on 06-11-2023]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: M. K. Gahlaut, Advocate
For the Respondents: Vineet Dhanda, CGSC; Raghvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel; Manu Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel; Purnima Jain, Vaibhav Tripathi, Advocates
