NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to place before it the findings of the enquiry report against certain officials who were alleged to have colluded with traders in stalling sealing operations in the Capital.

A three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Y. K. Sabharwal, Justice C. K. Thakker and Justice R. V. Raveendran gave this direction after MCD counsel Sanjib Sen informed the Court about the departmental enquiry and the action taken against the erring officers.

In particular, the Bench sought details of the action taken against the MCD engineers of West Zone where there were allegations of non-sealing of some premises. Counsel told the Bench that the Superintending Engineer could not be held responsible for the lapses since he was not actually involved in such operations. He said that five teams under various assistant engineers were in the field when such dereliction of duty took place and action had been taken against those assistant engineers.

To a question from the Bench as to what action the MCD had taken pursuant to the September 29 judgment, counsel said the MCD had prepared draft notices for publication for resumption of operations to seal the unauthorised commercial establishments. He said the notices would be published after the Monitoring Committee gave its approval.

Meanwhile, the BJP MLA from Hari Nagar in West Delhi, Harsharan Singh Balli, one of 22 contemnors, admitted before the Court that he had canvassed against the sealing of commercial premises in residential areas openly and publicly. He said that as part of peaceful resistance to the court orders, which he considered to be against public interest, he did break some seals of the commercial properties put up by the MCD pursuant to the apex court orders.

He said he represented the people of his constituency and considered it his duty to raise his voice in public interest matters. He maintained that the order of sealing of shops in the areas earmarked as residential in the zonal development plans was not in the interest of the citizens of Delhi.

He said his opposition to the sealing of properties was in exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression and in discharge of his public duties as an elected representative of the people of Delhi. He said he would submit himself to any punishment that might be imposed by the court to uphold the majesty of law.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail