IN RE: NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN HINDUSTAN TIMES TITLED "AND QUIT FLOW MAILY YAMUNA versus -

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 12-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
IN RE: NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN HINDUSTAN TIMES 
B 
TITLED "AND QUIT FLOW MAILY YAMUNA:" 
DECEMBER 12, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Urban Development : 
Town planning-City of Delhi-Construction of additional floor -
Ministry of Urban Development Press Note dated 27.11.2001 permitting 
C construction of ddditional floor-Implementation stayed by Supreme Court 
by its order dat~d I I .12.2001-IAs. by Municipal Corporation of Delhi 
and Union of India seeking modification of order. dated 17.12. 200 I and 
for allowing increased FAR and additional construction with an undertaking 
that no additional dwelling unit will be created-Record shows that 
D proposed additional construction is to give a little more accommodation 
without adding to the burden of infrastructure facilities-Order dated 
11.12.2001 modified so as to enable the authorities to sanction plans in 
the manner indicated the latter dated 27.11.2001. 
E 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos. 24, 25, 28 and 29. 
IN 
Writ Petition (C) No. 725 of 1994. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, (AC) 
(NP), Sudhir Chandra, A.B. Saharya, M.C. Mehta (NP) Ms. Indra Sawhney, 
K.C. Kaushik , D.S. Mabra, S.N. Terdol, Krishnan Mahajan, T.A. Khan, . 
P. Parmeswaran, Vijay Panjawani, Ravindra Bana, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ms. 
G Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, S.K. Mehta, M.L. Lahoty, R.C. 
Verma, Mukesh Verma, Manish Shanker, Girish Chandra, Pradeep Misra, 
Ms. Indu Misra, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, M.K. Diwakaran Namboodiri, Ajay 
K. Agrawal, Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms.AnamikaAgrawal, Prashant Chaudhary, 
Ms. Geeta Luthra, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ashok K. Srivastava,, 
H Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ranbir Yadav, Mrs. Shiel Sethi, Satish Vig, Parijat 
694 
IN RE 
NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN HINDUSTAN TIMES TITLED "AND QUIT FLOW MAILY YAMUNA:" 695 
Sinha, R.K. Rathore, Addi. Adv. General, R.S. Suri, Ajay Verma and Pavan A 
Kumar for the appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
RAJENDRA BABU, J : On 11.12.2001, this Court made an order B 
as follows : 
"I.A. has been filed. It has been taken on board and the same be 
numbered. 
Learned Amicus Curiae draws our attention to the notification C 
dated 7th June, 2000, wherein it was inter alia stated that the plans 
would be sanctioned only after arrangements for provision of 
augmentation of municipal services have been made. He then 
contends that now a press note has been issued on 27th November, 
2001 which purports to supercede the said notification and permits D 
const:-uction of additional floor without first augmenting the civic 
infrastructure. The press note indicates that it is only after money 
is generated by granting permission to construct additional floo.r 
that there will be augmentation of civic infrastructure. The learned 
Amicus Curiae submits that this is not only contrary to the E 
notification of 7th June, 2000, but town planning also requires the 
civic infrastructure being jn place before building is allowed to 
be constructed. 
Issue notice to the M.C.D., N.D.M.C., Delhi Administration as F 
well as the Union of India. Stay of implementation of the· press 
note dated 27th November, 2001 in the meanwhile." 
kt I.A. No. 24, the Amicus Curiae ~ought for a direction to stay 
construction activities being carried on pursuant to the Press Note issued 
by the Ministry of Urban Development dated 27.11.2001 and direct the G 
enforcement of the Notification dated 7.6.2000. In I.A. No. 25, the Union 
of India have sought for vacation or m~dification of the order dated 
11.12.2001. I.A. No. 28 is filed by two applicants residing in Hauz Khas, 
New Delhi, not only for intervention but also seeking modification of the 
order made on 11.12.2001 to the effect that the building plans can be H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A sanctioned in accordance with the Building Bye-laws, 1983, as amended 
by the Notification dated 23.7.1998 provided the number of dwelling 
units are not increased beyond what was permitted prior to 23.7.1998. 
Another applicant in Panchsheel Enclave has sought for a similar relief in · 
I.A. No. 29. 
The learned Solicitor General, who appeared for Union of India, 
pointed out that by letter dated 27.11.2001 advert:ng to a letter from the 
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Delhi sent on 22.11.2001 
regarding sanctioning and regularizing of building plans pursuant to the 
Notification
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.