SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 12-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
f20171 12 S.C.R. 540 
SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 21806-21807 of2017) 
DECEMBER 12, 2017 
[KUIUAN .JOSEPH AND AMITAVA ROY, .J.J.] 
Rehabilitation: Demolition ofj!tuggies (hut111e11t.1} - Residents 
of slum clusters claiming rig!tt to shelter - Decision of respondent 
holding that the petitioners were on the right of way and were 
therefore not entitled to relocation - High Court set aside the decision 
of respondent declaring it illegal and w1constitutional and directed 
that in terms <>f extant policy for relocation ofjhuggi dwellers which 
is operational in view of the orde1:v of the Supreme Court, the cases 
of petitione1:v s!tould be considered for relocation - Writ petitione1:~ 
approac!ted Hig/1 Court invoking its contempt jurisdiction ;1s t!tey 
were aggrieved with the nonrco111pli1111ce of the direction i11 the :mid 
· judgment - High Court held that only the actual affected writ 
E petitione1:1· were entitled to the benefits of rehabilitation -
Held: It 
is not required that in a public interest litigation all the affected 
parties should be petitioners - It is a well-accepted prii1ciple of 
class litigation - In tl1e instant case, .the petitioners have actually 
fumis/1ed the names of persons who have been idehtified as the 
F 
G 
H 
personi affected - Therefore, High Court 011gl1i to have extended 
the benefit to those persons whose names were also fi1rnished by 
way of wmexures to the writ petitions and for w!tose benefits the 
High Court rendered the judgment. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
It is not required that in a public interest litigation 
all the affected parties should be petitioners. In the facts of this 
case, the petitioners have actually furnished the names of persons 
who have been identified as the persons affected. Hence the 
Hi~rl1 Court ought to have extended the benefit to those persons 
540 
SUD AMA SINGH & ORS. ETC. v. DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA 
& ORS. ETC. 
whose names have also been furnished by way of annexurcs to 
the writ petitions and for whose benefits the High Court has 
rendered the ,judgment. The eligibility of the persons referred 
to in the Annexurcs will have to be verified and that is what is 
precisely indicated by the Court in direction No.3 to the effect 
that the benefit should be available to those eligible persons in 
terms of the relocation policy. The respondents arc directed to 
implement the judgment in the light of the clarification given in 
this judgment. [Paras 11 and 12j [545-F-H] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 21806-
21807 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2014 of the High Court 
of Delhi in Contempt Case (C) No. 821 of 2014 and 884 of 2013. 
Prashant Bhushan, Amiy Shukla, Shakti Vardhan, Advs for the 
Appellants. 
Atmaram N. S. Nadkarni, ASC'~ Merusagar Si1mantray, A. K. 
Srivastava, Ms. Lhingneivah, B. V. Balra1mias, B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. 
Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Ms. Bhawana Duhoon, 
Pravccn Swarup, R. K. Singh, T;~jinder Virdi, Lokender Kumar, Advs 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants arc aggrieved since the High Court under the 
Contempt of Courts Act has clarified the judgment dated 11.2.20 I 0 beyond 
what it has actually heen intended to be, according to the appellants. 
3. Short facts: Four writ petitions were filed as ptiblic interest 
litigations before the High Court (W.P. No.8904 and connected matters). 
The prayer in the writ petitions were more or less the same. We shall 
extract one set of pniyers: 
"a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction of 
similar nature to direct the Government ofNCT of Delhi to provide 
541 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
J-1 
• 
542 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
suitable alternative accommodation to all inhabitants/slum dwellers 
of New Sanjay Camp. 
b. Direct the Respondents to compensate the Petitioners and the 
other residents for their enormous loss occurred in demolition of 
their juggies, which had been demolished arbitrarily without their 
adequate rehabilitation/relocation." 
4. These writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment 
dated 11.02.2010. T~e operative portion of the judgment contained in 
paragraphs 62 to 64, reads as follows:-
"62. It is declared that : 
(i) The decision of the respondents holding that the petitioners are 
on the "Right of Way" and are,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.