ANIRUDH KUMAR versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 5 S.C.R. 918 · Decided: 20-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 918 
ANIRUDH KUMAR 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.8284 of 2013) 
MARCH 20, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
Town Planning - Running of Diagnostic Centre 
(Pathological Lab) in the residential area - Permissibility -
Pathological lab on the basement, ground floor, first floor and 
mezzanine floor of the building- Writ petition by the appellant 
0 
(the resident on the second floor of the building) against the 
owners of the Lab and the authorities concerned - During 
pendency of the petition, regularisation Certificate issued on 
11. 7.2006 to the owners by Municipal Corporation under 
Mixed Land Use for running the lab - Appellant filed fresh 
E Writ Petition challenging the Regularization Certificate -
Petition dismissed by Single Judge of High Court- Order of 
Single Judge confirmed in LPA by Division Bench of High 
Court - On appeal, held: Regularization Certificate under 
Mixed Use Regulations of the Master Plan Delhi 2021 giving 
F retrospective effect was granted, even before the Plan came 
into force- The Certificate was also contradictory to the Mixed 
Use Regulations under the Master Plan 2001 - Thus the 
Certificate was impermissible not only in law but also 
because it was granted without seeking permission from the 
G High Court during the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition -
Running of the Lab has led to omission of hazardous 
substances affecting human beings, plants, micro organisms, 
and other living creatures - It has also resulted in water and 
noise pollution - There is blatant violation of the provisions 
H of building bye-laws of MCD in using the building for the 
918 
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
919 
DELHI 
purpose other than the purpose for which it was constructed A 
- Running of Pathological Lab or the Nursing Home is 
impermissible in the concerned building under the Master 
Plan 2001 and also under the provisions of Water (Prevention 
and Control of Pollution) Act, · 1981 -Authorities concerned 
directed to stop the unlawful activities of the owners of the B 
Lab- Master Plan of Delhi 2001- Master Plan of Delhi 2021 
- Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Environment (Protection) 
Act, 1986- Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 
1981. 
Public Interest Litigation - Writ Petition by resident of 
c 
a building-Against the owners of Pathological Lab who were 
running the lab on other floors of that building, which fell in 
Residential area - Dismissal of the petition - LPA 
thereagainst dismissed on the ground that it was a private D 
interest litigation - Held: Running of the lab amounts to 
violation of the rule of law and affected the public interest, 
hence it is a Public Interest Litigation by the appellant fighting 
for the cause of all the local residents. 
Words and Phrases: 
"hazardous substance"~ Meaning of, in the context 
of s. 2( e) of Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
E 
F 
"Process" - Meaning of, in the context of environment 
protection laws. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Division Bench of High Court was G 
not correct in holding that the proceedings initiated by 
the appellant were not in the nature of public interest, 
but was only private interest litigation. It is clear from 
the pleadings and documentary evidence that several 
representations had been made by the affected H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A neighbours of the building at different stages with regard 
to the nuisance created by the Pathological Lab right 
from 29.12.1995 till date including the complaint made 
by the 32 residents of Hauz Khas to the Assistant 
Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on 27.07.2009. The 
B running of·the Pathological Lab in the building by the 
respondent-owners amounts to violation of the rule of 
law and affects the public interest, therefore, it is public 
interest litigation even though the appellant herein is a 
resident of the second floor of the concerned building 
C and simultaneously he has been fighting for the cause 
D 
E 
of all the local residents. [Para 24) [935-G-H; 936-A-D] 
S. P Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others 
1982 SCR 365 (1981) Supp. SCC 87 - followed. 
State of Uttaranchal v. Ba/want Singh Chaufal 2010 (1) 
SCR 678: 2010 (3) SCC 402; Gadde Venkateswara 
Rao v. State of A.P AIR 1966 828: 1966 SCR 172 -
relied on. 
2.1 The MCD has ignored the relevant aspects of 
the case of deviation of the then relevant Del
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.