Introduction:
The Supreme Court, in the case of Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. Expressed strong concerns over unauthorised commercial constructions in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) alleged inaction in addressing the issue. The matter revolves around two Delhi High Court orders related to alleged illegal constructions at Bagh Deewar, Fatehpuri. The petitioners argued that the High Court’s disposal of their petition based on MCD’s statements was improper, as unauthorised commercial constructions continued in an area designated as a residential zone. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh signalled an inclination to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the matter. The Court also directed the MCD to show cause as to why a deeper probe should not be ordered and asked the petitioners to propose names for an independent committee to inspect the site before deciding on a CBI investigation. The Court’s sharp rebuke of the MCD’s role in handling unauthorised constructions underscores its concerns regarding potential collusion between builders and municipal authorities.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioners contended that despite their repeated complaints, unauthorised commercial construction continued unabated in Bagh Deewar, Fatehpuri, in violation of zoning regulations. They argued that the MCD’s failure to act decisively indicated either negligence or complicity, making a deeper probe essential. They highlighted that the High Court, while disposing of their petition, relied entirely on the MCD’s statements that the unauthorised construction had been removed without independently verifying the claims. They also pointed out that the High Court’s subsequent order excluded property No. 13-16 from PIL proceedings despite allegations of continued illegal construction. This, they argued, created a legal loophole that allowed builders to bypass regulations.
On the other hand, the MCD defended its position by stating that it had followed the Delhi High Court’s directives, including issuing demolition and sealing orders where necessary. The MCD’s counsel asserted that unauthorised construction had already been removed and cited a Court Commissioner’s report to support their claim. They further contended that photographs on record proved compliance and that the petitioners’ insistence on a CBI inquiry was unwarranted. However, the Court was unimpressed with these explanations, questioning whether the municipal body was being run by builders rather than officials tasked with upholding the law.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court took a stern stance against the MCD, expressing dissatisfaction with its explanations and questioning the apparent delay in enforcement actions. Justice Surya Kant remarked that the MCD only took action when forced by PILs, raising serious doubts about its commitment to curbing illegal constructions. Observing that municipal authorities had seemingly “shut their eyes” to rampant violations, the Court deemed a thorough investigation necessary. The Court directed the MCD to show cause within a week as to why a deeper probe should not be ordered, indicating that a CBI investigation was under serious consideration.
Additionally, the bench directed the petitioners to serve notice to unserved respondents, ensuring that all affected parties had an opportunity to be heard. The Court also invited the petitioners to suggest names of independent architects and engineers to form a committee for on-site inspections. The bench emphasised that an expert team’s inspection was necessary not only to assess unauthorised constructions but also to scrutinise the role of MCD officials in permitting such illegal activities. The matter was adjourned for a week, pending further submissions from the parties.