M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A hazard to health and environment of not only the persons residing in the illegal colonization area but of the entire town as well as the provision and scheme of the Act had to be taken into consideration.

In Faqir Chand & Anr. v. Shri Ram Rattan Bhanot & Anr., [1973] B I sec 572, dealing with use of premises in Delhi by a tenant contrary to the purpose for which it could be used in tenns of the lease between the landlord and the paramount lessor, this Court observed, while dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute that the policy of the Legislature seems to be to put an end to unauthorized use of leased land rather than merely to enable the authorities to get back possession of the leased lands. While dealing with the provisions of DD Act and clause (k) of proviso to sub-section (I) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it was noticed that the Legislature has clearly taken note of the fact that the enonnous extents of land have been leased by the three authorities mentioned in that clause, and has expressed by m~ans of this clause its anxiety to see that these lands are used for the purpose for which they were leased. It was also observed that the authority may not be prepared to accept compansation but might insist upto cessation of the unauthorized use. Since the most of the land used for industrial purpose in residential/non-confonning areas is leased land, it was even open to the authorities to cancel the lease on account of the misuser.

In Dr. K Madan v. Smt. Krishnawati & Anr., [1996] 6 SCC 707, it was held that observations made in Punjab National Bank v. Arjun Dev Arora & Ors., [1986] 4 SCC 660 to the effect that as long as the penalty for wrongful user is continued to be paid, the deviation of user could be pennitted, do not appear to be in consonance with the decision of the larger Bench in Faqir Chand's case (supra). On one hand, we have the decisions observing that merely by payment of penalty, continued misuser cannot be pennitted and on the other the misuser commenced and contained·contrary to the land use under the nose of the authorities without any action being taken.

In V.M. Kurian v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [2001] 4 SCC 215, while quashing the· order passed by the State Government exempting the provisions of Kerala Building Rules, 1984 for constructing an eight storeyed building ~ontrary to the mandatory provisions of the Rules, it was

M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.I. [SABHARWAL, J.] 535

observed that the Rules were mandatory in nature and are required to be complied with. The construction of high-rise building and observance and compliance thereof is for public safety and convenience. There cannot be relaxation of the Rules which are mandatory in nature and cannot be dispensed with especially in the use of a high-rise building.

B In the present case, the land cannot be permitted to be used contrary to the stipulated user except by amendment of the Master Plan after due observance ofthe provisions of the Act and the Rules. Non-taking of action by the Government amounts to indirectly permitting the unauthorized use which mounts to the amendment of the Master Plan without following due C procedure.

In this very matter, dealing with the industries of 'H' category which now stand shifted pursuant to the order of this Court, it is pertinent to note what a three Judge Bench of which one of us (B.N. Agrawal, J.) was a member said in re]ation to entrepreneurial failure and total apathy non- D concern for social good and benefit by the authorities as under :

"The issues are long pending - the issues are urgent since the entire society is impaired - no exception can be taken to the legal battles involved in an adversarial litigation - this is not one such instance : it is a true public interest litigation for the protection of the society and to avoid a deliberate peril arising out of entrepreneuri;l.l failure and total apathy and non-concern for social good and ben~fit. The Delhi Development Act of 1957 envisaged preparation ofa Master Plan for Delhi with a definite statutory direction to define various zones into which Delhi may be divided for the purposes of development and the manner in which the land in each zone is proposed to be used and the stages by which such development shall be carried out. As a matter of fact the Master Plan came into existence in 1962 and 'H' category industries ought to have shifted out of the area specified therein by 1962 G itself. Then came the Master Plan of 1990 to combat the existing situation with a specified period of shifting within three years i.e. there was an obligation on the 'H' category industries to shift and relocate in terms of the Master Plan by the year 1993 and the social activist by reason of the failure of the entrepreneurs, moved H

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SU.PP. 2 S.C.R.

A this Court in 1995 whereupon, after allowing all possible opportunities to all entrepreneurs and upon assessment of the situation through the appointments of commissions and obtaining various reports on these aspects passed the order on I 0-5-1996 (MC. Mehta v. Union of India, [1996] 4 SCC 351) which has till date not been complied with - indeed a sorry state of affairs and B a total neglect and apathy towards the society, new and novel submissions are advanced as in any adversarial litigation but unfortunately as noticed above it is too late in the day to contend otherwise, apart from what the order contains as of I 0-5-1996 (MC. Mehta v. Union of India, [1996] 4 SCC 351)." c In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 212, this Court was concerned with a public interest writ petition filed by an environmentalist association alleging environmental pollution caused by private industrial units. It was held that the writ petition is not really for issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions against the units/factories which were running polluting industries and had not even installed any equipment for treatment of highly toxic effluents by them, but is directed against Union oflndia, Government of Rajasthan and Rajasthan Pollution Control Board to compel them to perform their statutory duties which they had failed to carry out and thereby seriously undermined the right of life of the residents of Bichhri and the affected area guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. If this Court finds that the authorities had not taken action required of them by law and that their inaction is jeopardising the right to life of the citizens of this country or any section thereof, it is the duty of this Court to intervene. If it is found that the respondents are flouting the provisions of Jaw and the directions and orders issued by the lawful authorities, this Court can certainly make appropriate directions to ensure compliance with law and lawful directions made thereunder. If an industry is established without obtaining the requisite permission and clearance and if the industry is continued to be run in blatant disregard of law to the detriment of life and liberty of the citizens living in the vicinity, can it be suggested with any modicum of reasonableness that this Court has no power to intervene and protect the fundamental right to life and liberty of the citizens of this country.

H We may also recall what the Constitution Bench said in Oleum Gas

M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, J.] 537

Leak case (MC. Mehta v. Union of India, [1987] 1 sec 395) in relation to hazardous or inherently dangerous industry, and we quote :

"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non- delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on its part. D Since the person harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost of carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, tbe I.aw must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently, dangerous activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity regaqdless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. ..... We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardou~ or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting for H

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Ryiimds v. Fietcher. (1968) LR 3 HL 330.

B We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the paragraph must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an C accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise."

We may note that some of the industrial activities like the plastic industry are inherently dangerous and is being carried on in residential/ D non-conforming areas. Such industrial activity is also carried on in area in respect whereof regularization is under contemplation allegedly on account of 70% concentration of industrial activity in the residential area. These facts are evident from the material placed by the respondents themselves before this Court. E The growth of illegal manufacturing activity in residential 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 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. Further, it is necessary to bear in mind that the lawmakers repose confidence in the authorities that they will ensure 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 law, keeping in view the norms of environment, bealth and safety, the Government and its

M. C MEHTA v. U.0.1. [SABHARWAL, J.] 539

agencies, if there was genuine will, could help the industry and workers by relocating industry by taking appropriate steps in last about 15 years. On the other hand, it encouraged illegal activities.

It may be noticed that the proposal of INS ITU regularization has also been opposed by the National Regional Board which was pointed out that the very purpose of the Act would be defeated by such regularization. It would lead to further congestion of Delhi instead of decongestion which was the very purpose for which the Act was enacted. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Mrs. Sheela Sethi, learned counsel appearing for National Regional Board and Shri Panjwani, learned counsel appearing for Central C Pollution Control Board have opposed the continued unauthorized use for industrial activity of residential/non-conforming areas as also the proposal of!NSITU regularization. It has been contended that such industries should be immediately closed down/shifted. Mrs. Sethi contended that INSITU regularization would defeat the very purpose of the Act under which NCR D was established. The contemplated action of reg1.1larization would run counter to the object of the Act which is to decongest the city of Delhi from the industrial activity. The Act of regularization would result in further congesting already highly congested city. Mr Panjwani contended that the regularization would further result in air and water pollution and would also affect the underground water. Learned counsel further submitted that E· from material on record, it does not appear that anyone examined as to what effect the regularization will have on the aspect of pollution. It has been pointed out on behalf of CPCB that such regularization would result in further pollution of air ambient, water pollution besides causing other environmental hazardous. For reasons already stated, we find substar,ce in these contentions.

Residents of Poorvi Viswas Nagar Samaj Kalyan Samiti have filed Writ Petition No. 98 of2000 opposing INSITU regularization and pointing out that the Viswas Nagar is an approved residential area where residential buildings have been constructed by the residents and no industrial activity is allow as per law. Many of the plots in which the people are residing were purchased by them from the custodian of Evacuees property. It is further pointed out that recently industrial units were established in contravention of rules and by adopting unfair means. They have, thus, objected to the INSITU regularization. H

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A From the aforesaid, it is evident that the industry belonging to 'F' category in residential/non-conforming areas could not come up after 1st August, 1990 since even the existing 'F' category industry in non- conforming areas was required to be shifted to the permissible zone within a maximum period of three years after allotment of plot. The same is the position in respect of light and service industry belonging to 'B' to 'E' category except that depending upon number of workers employed, the Master Plan stipulates different time schedule for these industries to shift.

Despite the time span mentioned in 1990 Master Plan having expired and various opportunities having been given during 1995, 1996 and 1997 and notices issued, and 13 years having passed, the non-conforming use by the industry has continued. A time has come that such non-conforming use must stop at least by those who commenced it from and after 1st August, 1990.

D The position in respect of household industries which are permissible, the question of the same not being carried on in residential/non-conforming area would not arise. The difficulty arises in carrying on of such activity of household industry which is not permissible. The State Government sought expansion of'A' category industries. The Government of India has E approved only 6 out of list of 41 industries. In case, the remaining are not approved, impermissible 'A' category industrial units shall also have to stop functioning. It is imperative for the Central Government to expeditiously decide this issue one way or the other. In short, permissible household industry activity can go on and impermissible activity has to stop.

F The plea of IN SITU regularization and mild resistance to shifting has been propounded only by Mr. Govardhan, 'earned counsel appearing for Delhi Government. In same fashion it was substantially supported by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, senior advocate appearing for Union of India and Mr. Saharya, learned counsel appearing for Delhi Development Authority G though without taking a definite stand. DDA merely adopted the stand of Union of India. Insofar as Union oflndia is concerned having already taken a contrary stand as above noticed, it adopted a middle path without clearly supporting or opposing the Delhi Government on the issue of lNSITU regularization by taking a stand that it has issued guidelines and would consider the question of INSITU regularisation at the time of finalisation

M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (SABHARWAL, J.] 541

of Master Plan - 2021. The said Master Plan is not likely to be finalized for another 2 years. In this view, the suggestion of Delhi Government is that pending approval of proposal of INSITU regularization, the industrial units falling in that category may not be ordered to be closed/shifted from residential/non-conforming areas. In other words, it means that the illegality should be further permitted to be continued till the new Master Plan is finalized - whether it takes two years or more. In regard to other illegal industrial units, the suggestion put forth on behalfofthe Delhi Government is that immediate directions for closure/shifting of only those industrial units shall be made which were set up after 31st December, 1996 as under the Order dated 19th April 1996, the industrial activity in residential/non- C conforming area was directed to be closed after 31st December, 1996. We, however, see no jurisdiction for continuance of the illegal and unauthorized industrial activity in residential/non-conforming areas which commenced after 1st August, 1990. It would also apply to industries in categories 'B' to 'F'. D In respect of household industry belonging to 'A' category, it was contended on behalf of the Delhi Government that the number of industries falling in that category is being expanded and proposal for additional 41 items for being placed in category 'A' has been approved by DDA and the matter is pending with the Government of India and, therefore, the industrial units carrying any activity falling in the proposed expanded category should also not be shifted for the present. It appears that out of 41 items, the Government of India has granted approval in respel'. of 6 items and, no decision has been taken, one way or the other, in respect of remaining 35 items. We again reiterate that the question is only of stopping unauthorized and illegal activity and not that activity which is permissible.

We may note another argument put forth on behalf of Delhi Government that it is not the function and responsibility of the Delhi Government to enforce the Master Plan, it has no powers to enforce it. We are not only surprised but shocked at such frivolous stand being taken, despite what is stated in the order passed by this Court on 18th December,

1996. That order noticed the reason as to why the court thought it appropriate to step aside. It was noticed that seemingly the State Government was seriously enforcing the law. At that stage, no argument about absence of power was put forth. If it was not the function and responsibility of State H

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Government and the Government had no power, we wonder the reason why the Government filed IA No. 1206 seeking extension of time upto March 2004 to relocate the industries. We summarily reject this wholly frivolously submission.

Neither on behalf of the Government of India nor on behalf of the B Delhi Government nor on behalf of any statutory authority, it could be disputed that the unauthorized and illegal industrial activity has commenced and continued in Delhi in blatant breach of the provisions of Master Plan and no action has been taken by any authority. The responsibility to take C action was sought to be shifted. Each blaming the other. While on behalf of Delhi Government, as above noticed, it sought to avoid its obligation on the ground that it is not the function of the State Government to implement the Master Plan. The Government of India avoided its responsibility on the ground that the Central Government is not the implementing agency though the manner in which the Central Government D has taken a summersualt in its stand already stand noticed. Similarly, the other statutory authorities have also avoir.~d to shoulder the responsibility for inaction for the blatant breach of the legal provisions. Respondents have been taking a convenient stand from time to time without any regard for statutory provisions and have at least turned their face on the other side knowing that blatant breach is being committed, even if we assume that there was no. connivance with the industry for extraneous considerations. The Master Plan, 2001 stipulates the shifting of extensive industries ('F' category) to conforming zone within a period of three years after allotments of plots by authorized Government agencies. In respect of light and service industries ('B' to 'E' category), it provides shifting to the industrial use zone within a maximum period of three years after allotment of plots and by providing necessary incentive by various Government Agencies in conforming use zone. This is in respect of all the industrial units with 20 or more workers. In respect of industrial units with I 0 to 19 workers, it stipulates review after five years giving them chance during this period for reallocation in conforming zones. Similarly, industrial units with worker strength upto nine, it pro~> ides for review after 10 years after giving them chance during the said period for reallocation in the conforming zones. The suggestion of Delhi Government is that such all industrial units which. have come up after 1st January, 1997 shall be directed to be closed in the first instance by giving them some time. In respect of industrial units which

M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (SABHARWAL, J.) 543

have come up between 1st August, 1990 to 31st December, 1996, it was sugges~d that the bigger units having more than 20 workers may first be directed to be closed, later the units having workers between I 0 to 19 and ·• last of all those units which have less than 10 workers be directed to be closed. The suggestion is that the shifting may be directed in a phased manner. B Mr. Goverdhan also points out that after the advertisement for reallocation was issued in terms of the orders of this Court, about 51,000 applications were received out of which approximately 24,000 applicants were held to be eligible. In Bawana Industrial Estate, 18,34 7 industrial C plots are ready and allotment and possession has been given to I 0,059 industrial units and remaining have still to take possession. It was further pointed out that nearly 6,000 who are found eligible for allotment of industrial plot for relocation are on the waiting list awaiting the allotment of the industrial plot. In respect of these units, it was pointed out that development of industrial plot will take about two and a half years. D

In respect of those not found eligible by the Government for reallocation and also those who did not apply pursuant to the advertisement, it was suggested that they be also given a chance to find out alternate industrial plot. It respect of the industrial units ('A' Category) which may E fall in extended category of 41 items if the extension is not ultimately approved by the Government of India, they may also have to be phased out. According to the Delhi Government, about 20,000 units fall in this category and as the matter is pending with the Government of India, directions may be issued for early decision by Government and in the J:' meanwhile, these activities may not be directed to be closed.

In short, it was not seriously questioned that for the present except those industrial units falling in category 'A', 15,000 industrial units which fall in the category of INSITU regularization and 6,000 who are in the waiting list, the rest of the industrial units have to close down. G

In respect of industrial activity in rural area/Lal Dora, learned counsel appearing for the Government and various authorities did not dispute the submission of learned Amicus Curiae that except industry falling in Group 'A' and 'A-1' of category 'A', no other industrial activity was permissible. H

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A None made contra submission or brought to our notice any provision permitting other industrial activity in the rural area/Lal Dora.

At this juncture, we may also deal with, in brief, the submission urged on behalf of Government of India that it is not the implementing agency. B One has only to refer to Section 41 of the DD Act which empowers the Central Government to issue directions to DDA for the efficient administration of the DD Act. Who no such direction was issued, there could be no answer. There is also no answer as to what steps were taken to consider the extension of category 'A' list after adding to that category six more household industries in terms of notification dated 10th April, C 2001, despite lapse of three years. No answer came forth that when the matter of shifting of remaining 'F' category units was deferred by the Delhi Government in January 2001 on the purported ground of the Police Force being pre-occupied in making Republic Day arrangements and was dealing with the security angle, what made the Central Government not to take up the issue again with the Lt. Governor of Delhi after the Republic Day functions were over. In this regard, we may refer to a letter dated 8th January, 2001 sent by Lt. Governor of Delhi to the Minister of Urban Development, Government of India, stating that the operation for the closure of more polluting 'F' category industrial units in non-conforming areas has been completed and for launching of fresh operation to close down the remaining 'F' category units, the Police Force being pre-occupied with making security arrangements for Republic Day function, the fresh operation for closure of industrial units would be reviewed later. The later review has not seen the light of the day ciespite expiry of more than three years. It is evident that, in the meanwhile, the Government of India, as already noticed above, has changed its stance and under the garb of issuing guidelines for the Master Plan for Delhi - 2021, action against violators of law has come to a standstill for an indefinite period.

Insofar as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi is concerned, we have already noticed its stand that non-conforming industrial units falling in category •B' to 'F' whether polluting or not polluting which have come up in contravention of the Master Plan should not be permitted to operate and should be closed down. In this connection, reference can be made to a public notice issued by MCD informing the general public and owners/ H occupiers/operators of industrial units situated in non-conforming/residential

M. C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. [SABHARWAL, J.] 545

areas that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the industrial A activity in violation .of the Master Plan of Delhi - 2001 be closed down immediately failing which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall forcibly close such units. All ad hoc licences granted, if any, shall stand revoked/cancelled. In respect of the industrial activity in Lal Dora, in the affidavit filed in October, 2002 by Chief Town Planner of Municipal B Corporation of Delhi it has been stated that the proposal for the withdrawal of exemption notification would be placed before the Corporation. Nothing seems to have been done in that direction. It is not disputed that under the garb of exemption notification dated 24th August, 1963, all kinds of buildings have come up in the Lal Dora. c Insofar as I.A. 1527 is concerned, it seems evident that the applicant, National Cable Industry, had undertaken to shift to the conforming area and on that ground obtained an order for removal of the seal from its premises so as to remove the machinery. The industrial unit was carrying on the activity which falls in category 'F'. The premises are in rural area. D The question whether the activity that was being carried on was polluting or not need not be examined since the application deserves to be dismissed firstly on the ground of suppression of material facts inasmuch as it has not been mentioned therein that the applicant had given an undertaking that he would be shifting his unit to the NOIDA area and secondly on the ground that the applicant cannot be permitted to resile from the undertaking. The applicant has already taken advantage of the undertaking and has removed the machinery. In this view, we need not go into the larger question as to which provisions of Municipal Laws will be applicable and which not to the rural areas or areas in the Lal Dora. The aspect of industrial activity in these areas has already been dealt with. Under no circumstances, the applicant can be permitted to commence manufacturing activity from the premises in question.

The result of the aforesaid discussion is that except household industry, all other industrial units which have come up in residential/non- G conforming area in Delhi after 1st August, 1990 have to stop functioning. Unfortunately, the Government authorities have not lived up to the confidence that was reposed in them when the Court had stepped aside and left the matter to Government in the year 1996, as noticed hereinbefore. On the other hand, in the year 2002 while these matters were pending, H

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A commercial use of industrial area was sought to be regularized by DOA on payment of some amounts. On an application filed by learned Amicus Curiae public notice to the above effect was stayed. Later it was withdrawn by the authority. The action not only was utterly illegal but also shows total non-application of mind. Thus, going by the past experience, it would also be necessary to not only monitor but also to fix responsibility so that illegal activity does not continue any further and stops within the time schedule for its cessation fixed in this order. We also wish to make it clear that those who have set up industrial units after I st August, 1990 have no right for allotment of a plot in an industrial area. This would, however, not debar the Government/authorities to allot to such oustees plots industrial area but that under no circumstances should delay the closure process. Before we part, a word deserves to be said about Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel who has assisted this Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned Senior counsel has very effectively and ably assisted this Court both on facts and law. We place on record our deep appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Ranjit Kumar.

In conclusion, having regard to the aforesaid, we issue the following directions :

E !. All Industrial Units that have come up in Residential/non-conforming area in Delhi on or after I st August, 1990 shall close down and stop operation as per the following schedule :

(a) Industrial Units pertaining to extensive industries ('F' category) with a period of four months. F (b) Industrial Units pertaining to light and service industrial (category 'B' to 'F') within five months.

(c) lmpermissibe household industries (category 'A') within six months. G (d) 6, 000 industrial units on waiting list for allotment of industrial plots within 18 months.

2. The Central Government is directed to finalise the list of permissible H household industries falling in category 'A' within a period of three

M. C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (SABHARWAL, J.] 547 months. A

3. 6,000 industrial units on waiting list shall be allotted industrial plots within one year.

4Copy pinpoint4. The Delhi Government may announce a policy with six weeks giving B such incentives as it may deem fit and proper to those industrial units which came to be established after 1st August, 1990 and may close on their own before the expiry of the time fixed in this order. The non-announcement of incentives by the Government shall not, however, delay the closure process. c

5Copy pinpoint5. The water and electricity connection of the industrial units found operating after the due date of closure shall be disconnected forthwith and in any case not later than a month of the date fixed for closure in Direction No. 1 above. If the industrial activity still continues, the premises shall be sealed within a period of not later than another one- D month.

The seal shall be removed and water and electricity connection restored only after filing of an undertaking by the industrial unit not to recommence any sort of industrial activity before an officer E nominated for the purpose by the Delhi State.

6Copy pinpoint6. The Central Government is directed to finalise within six. months appropriate steps to be taken for making NCR region a success for industrial activity by removing the hurdles pointed out by the industry. The Governments of the adjoining States ofU.P., Rajasthan F and Haryana are directed to extend full cooperation.

7Copy pinpoint7. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall consider within three months the aspect of withdrawal of exemption notification as suggested in the affidavit of its Town Planner filed on 28th October, 2002. G

8Copy pinpoint8. We appoint a Monitoring Committee comprising (i) Chief Secretary of Delhi (ii) Commissioner of Police, D7lhi (iii) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and, (iv) Vice-Chairman of Delhi Development Authority. This Committee would be responsible for H

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A stoppage of illegal industrial activity. It would, however, be open to the aforesaid members of the Monitoring Committee to appoint responsible officers subordinate to them to oversee and ensure compliance of the directions contained in the judgment.

9Copy pinpoint9. The first Progress Report by the Committee shall be filed by 31st August, 2004 and thereafter it shall be filed, at least once in a period of every two months.

B.S. Matters disposed of.