SC orders resumption of sealing in Delhi

Refusing to entertain applications by traders and the central and Delhi governments, the Supreme Court has ordered the resumption of sealing operations in Delhi.

The modalities for the resumption of the operations to stop misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes will have to be worked out by the court-appointed monitoring committee and the authorities later.

The order, passed by a Bench headed by Chief Justice YK Sabharawal said, "We find no ground whatsoever to modify our order dated September 29, 2006 (sealing of unauthorised shops)."

Hours after the court order, a Group of Ministers (GoM) met to deliberate on the issue, following which Union Urban Development Minister S Jaipal Reddy said, "The Supreme Court's order is paramount and binding. We don't have an option but to implement it."

Regretting that the government, which had approached the court more than once to apprise it of the "difficulties" on the ground, failed to get any relief for traders, he said the matter would be taken up by the Cabinet.

The applications before the court had pointed at the law and order situation arising out of the three-day strike called by traders last week. More than 44,000 traders had given affidavits promising to shift their businesses out of residential areas.

However, the court stood firm and asserted that those responsible for maintaining law and order must use whatever power they had to enforce its earlier order.

It asked the monitoring committee to file weekly reports in sealed covers. Further orders of the court will be passed on their basis.

"The government is not powerless to control the situation and none can be permitted to force the authorities," the judges said adding, "No one can be permitted to hold the city and law abiding citizens to ransom and then seek relief," it said.

The government has an obligation to ensure compliance with court orders under articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.

Citing a law and order problem could not be an excuse for defying the constitutional mandate, the court said. It clarified that it was dealing with the sealing process and not demolition of unauthorised constructions.