ANIRUDH KUMAR versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 918, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
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 Delhi Master 
Plan and unauthorised use of the basement, ground 
floor, mezzanine floor and the first floor of the concerned 
F building. The said act of the MCD is contrary to the legal 
principles. [Para 27) [942-G-H; 943-A] 
2.2 The plea of the respondent-owners that the 
mezzanine floor does not exist in the building, is contrary 
G to the pleadings made before the courts below and even 
before this
Court and the same is made with a ma/a fide 
intention to conceal unauthorized construction and 
contravention of the building bye-laws. The issuance of 
the Regularisation Certificate dated 11.7.2006, in favour 
H of the respondent-owners of the Pathological Lab was
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
921 
DELHI 
in contravention of the building bye-laws and MPD-2021. A 
[Paras 29 and 30] [944-C-E] 
2.3 The report of the DPCC clearly states that the 
Regularisation Certificate was granted for running a 
Nursing Home whereas a Pathological Lab has been s 
functioning on the basement, ground floor of the building 
since the year 1995. In view of the Clause 15.4(ii) of the 
MPD-2021, the general terms and conditions governing 
Mixed Use provides that where there are more than one 
dwelling units in a residential plot, each of the dwelling C 
units will be permitted to have only type of Mixed Use 
activity (either retail shop as per Clause 15.5 or 
professional activity or any one of the other activities as 
provided in Clause 15.7). In the residential plot in 
question, there are more than two residential flats and D 
once again such kind of use of premises in the dwelling 
unit will be permitted to have only one kind of activity. 
[Para 32] [947-H; 948-A-C] 
2.4 From Clause 15.8 of MPD 2021, it is clear that if E 
the use of basement for professional activity exceeds 
the FAR, then such excess usage shall be subject to 
payment of appropriate charges prescribed with the 
approval of the Government of India. Neither the MCD 
nor the respondent-owners in their pleadings have F 
brought this fact to the notice of this Court that they have 
complied with the above said provision by paying the 
appropriate charges for usage of the
basement when 
the same is exceeding the permissible FAR on the plot 
of the building. [Para 34] [948-G; 949-D-E] 
G 
2.5 Thus, the grant of Regularisation Certificate 
under Mixed Use Regulations of the MPD 2021 giving 
retrospective effect enabling respondent-owners to run 
a Pathological Lab in the guise of a Nursing Home in the H
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A residential area falling in categories "A" and "B" is not 
sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The writ 
appeal filed by the appellant has been wrongly dismissed 
by the Division Bench of the. High Court without 
examining the legality and validity of the issuance of the 
B Regularisation Certificate on 11.07.2006 allegedly under 
the MPD 2021 which was still at the proposal stage at 
that time and the said Plan came into effect only on 
07.02.2007, enabling the respondent-owners to use the 
premises for commercial activity which is prohibited in 
C the residential plot of the building under the various 
Clauses of the Master Plan 2021. [Para 35] [949-G-H; 950-
-A-C] 
2.6 Further, the said Regularisation Certificate 
D granted by the MCD is contradictory to the Mixed Use 
Regulations under the Delhi Master Plan 2001 as well, 
which was relevant and in force at the time of granting 
of the Regularisation Certificate to the respondent-
owners. [Para 36] [950-D] 
E 
2.7 On examining the Regularisation Certificate 
issued by the MCD, it is c.lear that the Regularisation 
Certificate is for running of a Pathological Lab whereas 
the conditions mentioned therein are directed towards 
F running of a nursing home. Therefore, there is a lot of 
inconsistency within the Regularisation Certificate itself 
and due to the same, the Regularisation Certificate 
cannot be accepted as it is impermissible not only in law 
but also
because the same was granted without seeking 
G permission from the High Court during the pendency of 
the earlier Writ Petition filed by the appellant. [Para 38] 
[953-F-G] 
3.1 Clause 15.5 of MPD 2021, clearly states that 
H any trade or activity involving any kind of abnoxious,
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
923 
DELHI 
hazardous, inflammable activities, non-compatible A 
activities and polluting substance or process shall not 
be permitted. As per the report of the DPCC, it is clear . 
that chemical substances emitted from the Pathological 
Lab will be obnoxious, non-compatible, polluting and 
therefore, the same are not permissible under Clause B 
15.5 of the MPD 2021. Further, when the respondent-
owners started the Diagnostic Centre, they employed 
about more than 50 people and installed 25 Air 
Conditioners, two diesel generator sets of 25 KVA and 
40 KVA each in the set back area, along with kerosene C 
oil tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels. Around 300 
patients' visit the centre per day and more than 100 cars 
are parked in the vicinity. All these factors lead to air 
pollution which is in contravention of the Air (Prevention 0 
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. At present, 80 
employees are working and around 300 patients visit the 
Pathological Lab every day and vehicles are parked in 
and around the surrounding area which is also creating 
a parking problem to the residents of the area. The E 
nuisance created by all these factors not only leads to 
air pollution but also noise pollution to a great 
extent.[Paras 40 and 41) [954-8-C, G-H; 955-A-B] 
Priyanka Estate International (P) Ltd. v. State of 
Assam 2009 (16) SCR 80: (2010) 2 SCC 27 - relied 
on. 
F 
3.2 On examining the evidence on record, it is clear 
that
large diesel generator sets have been erected by 
the respondent-owners in the set-back area which is an G 
illegal structure in the residential premises and is in 
contravention of the building byelaws and zonal 
regulations of the MCD. [Para 43] [956-F-G] 
H
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
3.3 
The running of this large Pathological Lab 
has led to emission of hazardous substances and in that 
process human beings, plants, micro organisms, and 
other living creatures' are being exposed to harmful 
physico-chemical properties. Not only this, they also 
B create pollution which contaminates water on account 
of the discharge of chemical properties used in the 
process of running the Pathological Lab, causing 
nuisance and harm to public health and safety of the 
residents of the area. This fact is certified by the DPCC 
C in its report dated 4.8.2008. The usage of such generator 
sets has led to the damage of the building and cracks 
have been found in the building structure. [Para 44] [956-
H; 957-A-B] 
D 
3.4 The running of the Pathological Lab for which 
the generator sets and other heavy equipments have 
been installed not only create sound pollution and air 
pollution but also the same is in contravention of the 
Water, Air and the Environment Protection Acts. [Para 45] 
E [957-H; 958-A] 
3.5 Though the Pathological Lab had been granted 
National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration 
Laboratories (NABL) certification, however, the same 
F was granted on 15.7.2001 and was valid only for three 
years from the date of issue of the certificate i.e. upto 
14.07.2004. No record or document has been produced 
to prove that the Pathological Lab is still certified under 
the NABL certification. [Para 48)
[959-G-H; 960-A] 
G 
H 
3.6 Despite its notice by the MCD and DPCC, the 
illegal and unlawful activities of the respondent-owners 
have continued. Instead of taking prompt action as 
provided under the provisions of DOA Act, 1957 and the
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
925 
DELHI 
Environment Law, the MCD proceeded to regularise the A 
illegal and unlawful activities of the respondent-owners 
which has been carrying on since 1995. Further, the 
DPCC not only regularised the commercial activities of 
the Pathological Lab run by the respondent-owners 
under the guise of a 'Nursing Home' with retrospective B 
effect but no prompt action was taken under the 
provisions of the Act to either stop it or to demolish the 
illegal structure. Therefore, both the MCD and the DPCC 
abdicated their statutory duties in permitting the owners 
to carry on with the unlawful activities which inaction C 
despite persistent request made by the appellant and 
the residents of the area did not yield any results. [Paras 
49 and 50) [960-8-F] 
4. The conduct of the MCD and the DPCC for their D 
inaction, is highly deplorable as they have miserably 
failed to discharge their statutory duties on account of 
which there has been a blatant violation of the rule of 
law and thereby a large number of residents of the locality 
are suffering on account of the unlawful activities of the E 
respondent-owners, whose activities are patronised by 
both the authorities. [Para 51) [961-A-B] 
5. Directions are issued to the respondents MCD 
and DPCC to see that the unlawful activities of the F 
respondent-owners are stopped as per the directions 
of this Court. The respondent-owners are directed to 
close down their establishment of
running the Diagnostic 
Centre' in question, within four weeks from the date of 
receipt of the copy of this Judgment by shifting the same G 
to alternative premises. [Para 53) [961-G-H; 962-A] 
Noise Pollution (V) in RE 2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 624: 
(2005) 5 sec 733 - relied on. 
H
926 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
Case law reference 
1982 SCR 365 
followed 
Para 24 
2010 (1) SCR 678 
relied on. 
Para 24 
AIR 1966 828 
relied on. 
Para 25 
2009 (16) SCR 80 
relied on. 
Para 27 
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 624 
relied on. 
Para 41 
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No. 
8284of2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.01.2012 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letter Patent Appeal No. 
857of2010. 
H. P. Rawal, Anita Sahani, Divya Anand, Anando 
Mukherjee, Nipur Saxena, Purnima Bhat for the Appellant. 
L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG, K. K. Venugopal, lndu 
Malhotra, Kush Chaturvedi, Vikas Mehta, Nistha Kumar, A. 
Bhumesh, Suman Yadav, Puneeth K. G., D. N. Goburdhan, 
Prabal Singh, Sanjeev Sen, Dev J. Roy, Praveen Swarup, 
Suresh Kumar, Rakesh Kumar, Yogendra Pal Singh, P. 
F Kaushal, P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 
1. This appeal by special 
leave arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 
G 16.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPANo. 857 
of 2010 in and by which, the High Court, while dismissing the 
appeal held that this matter does not fall within its writ jurisdiction 
which requires determination by the High Court. 
H
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
927 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as A 
under:-
2. The appellant is residing on the second floor of D-1 
Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Dr. Navin Dang and Dr. Manju Dang, 
the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B 
respondent-owners') initially started a Pathological Lab in the 
name of 'Dr. Dang's Diagnostic Centre' in the year 1995 on 
the basement and ground floor of the concerned building and 
later on, in the year 2005-2006 the first floor of the premises 
was also purchased by them from its owner Mrs. Shanti C 
Chatterjee whereby they expanded the activities of the 
Pathological Lab even to mezzanine floor and first floor by 
installing heavy medical equipments to make it fully equipped 
with the latest technology. When the Diagnostic Centre was 
started, it employed about 50 people and installed 25 Air D 
Conditioners, two diesel generator sets of25 KVAand 40 KVA 
each in the set-back area of the building along with kerosene 
oil tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels. There was a major 
parking problem in and around the vicinity of the Diagnostic 
center since a large number of patients visited the centre every E 
day. 
3. The appellant made various complaints pertaining 
to the violation of the Master Plan to the concerned authorities', 
namely 1)Respondent No.1- Dy. Commissioner, Municipal F 
Corporation of Delhi(for shot 'the MCD'), 2)Respondent No.2 
-
SHO of the area, 3)Respondent No.3 - Executive Engineer, 
Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking. As no heed was given to 
the same by the aforesaid respondent, a writ petition No. 8808 
of 2004 was filed by the appellant before the High Court of G 
Delhi. During the pend ency of the said writ petition, contrary to 
the averments made by the MCD before the High Court that 
prosecution had been initiated against the responsible persons 
under Sections 347/461 of the Delhi DevelopmentAct, 1957, H
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A the Regularisation Certificate was issued on 11.07.2006 to 
the respondent-owners by the MCD underMixed Land Use 
for running the Pathological Lab on the ground floor and first 
floor of the concerned building. Aggrieved by the grant of 
Regularisation Certificate, the appellant withdrew the writ 
B petition No.8808 of 2004 and a fresh writ petition No. 225 of 
2008 was filed by the appellant before the High Court praying 
for quashing of the Regularisation Certificate wherein, the 
learned single Judge issued limited notice to the respondents 
with respect to Clauses 3 and 7 of the Regularisation 
C Certificate. The Learned single Judge rejected the challenge 
to the Regularisation Certificate issued on 11. 07 .2006 as the 
same was issued by MCD under Clause 15.7.1 of the MPD 
2021 approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, 
0 Government of India which reads thus: 
"15.7 OTHERACTIVITY 
15.7.1 Subject to the general conditions given in para 
15.4 and additional conditions given in para 15.7.3, 
E 
the following public and semi-public activities shall also 
be permitted in the residential plots abutting roads of 
minimum ROW prescribed in 15. 7.2, whether or not 
the road is notified as Mixed Use street: 
F 
(a) Pre-primary school (including nursery I Montessori 
school, creche.) 
G 
(b) i. Nursing Home 
ii. Clinic, Dispensary, Pathology laband 
Diagnostic center. 
" 
Further, the learned single Judge vide order dated 
H
5.10.2010 refused to decide the violation under Clause 7 of
AN I RUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
929 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
the Regularisation Certificate on the ground that the petition is A 
motivated by a private dispute than owing to any nuisance and 
hardship t'J any local resident as none of the other local 
residents had approached the Court with any complaint 
pertaining to nuisance. 
B 
4. The first respondent- MCD confirmed that one-time 
parking charges of Rs.9,35,673/-in terms of the Regularisation 
Certificate had been paid by the respondent owners and that 
respondent-owners had also deposited Rs.8,39,916/- as 
conversions charges. The appellant challenged the order dated C 
11.01.2008 issuing limited notice in writ petition No.225 of 
2008 passed by the learned single Judge by filing LPA No. 
267 of 2009 before the Division Bench of the High Court and 
later on withdrew the same. 
D 
5. Aggrieved by the Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by 
learned single Judge, the appellant filed LPA No.857 of 2010 
before the High Court praying for issuance of a writ of 
prohibition prohibiting the owners of the Pathological Lab from 
running the Diagnostic Centre in the concerned building, which E 
was also dismissed by the High Court of Delhi vide its order 
dated 16.01.2012. Hence._this appeal by special leave is filed 
by the appellant. 
6. Heard Mr. H.P. Rawal, learned senior counsel on F 
behalf of the appellant and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, and Ms. lndu 
Malhotra, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondent-
owners
and Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor 
General and other learned counsel on behalf of the respondent. 
G 
7. The learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant 
contended that the appellant made various complaints to the 
concerned authorities, namely, 1) Respondent No.1 - Dy. 
Commissioner, MCD regarding the commercial activity of the 
respondents-owners. 2) Respondent No.2- SHO of the area H 
for forceful installation of the Generator sets in the set-back
930 
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
~[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
area of the concerned property and blocking the underground 
water tanks and 3) Respondent No.3 - Executive Engineer, 
Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking about'the installation of 
the Generator sets. 
B 
8. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the 
appellant that the authorities were called upon by the appellant 
to take some preventive action against the respondent-owners 
as they have not taken any license or permission from the MCD 
prior to setting up of the Diagnostic Centre in the residential 
C area which is admitted by the concerned respondents 
themselves. According to the sanctioned building plan, the 
·· · basement and the mezzanine floor could be used only for 
storage purpose and for no other purpose. 
D 
. 9. It is further contended by him that the MCD never 
sought permission of the· High Court before issuing 
Regularisation Certificate in favour of the respondent-owners 
when W.P. No. 8808 of 2004 was pending before the High 
Court. It is further contended by him that the said Regularisation 
E Certificate dated 11. 7.2006 which was allegedly granted under 
the MPD 2021 which could not have retrospective effect but in 
fact, is prospective in nature. Further it has been contended 
by him thatthe MPD 2021 was notified by the Ministry of Urban 
DevelopmentVide Notification No. S.0.141 and was brought 
F into force on 07.02.2007. 
The said plan was only at its 
proposal stage, which fact was
taken note of by the Division 
Bench of the High Court in its impugned judgment. Thus, it can 
be said that even before the MPD 2021 was brought into 
effect, the MCD went ahead with issuing Regularisation 
G Certificate under the said plan in favour of the respondent-
owners of the Pathological Lab. 
10. Further, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel 
on behalf of the appellant that on 27.04.2006, the complaint 
H made by the 18 residents of the area to the Commissioner,
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
931 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
MCD about the hardship and nuisance faced by them were A 
not taken note of or given heed to by the authorities. Again on 
24.07.2009, 32 residents of Hauz Khas complained to theACP 
(Traffic) about the great hardship they have been facing due to 
the continuous nuisance being committed by the said 
Diagnostic and Pathological Lab. 
B 
11. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel 
for the appellant that no person shall, without the previous 
consent of Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC)-
respondent No. 5 herein shall establish or take any steps to C 
establish any industry, operation or process or any treatment 
and disposal system or any extension or addition thereto which 
is likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream or 
well or sewer or land. It is _mandatory on the part of such 
establishment to first obtain consent from the DPCC for D 
establishing or operating any industry, operation or process 
or any treatment and disposal system or any extension or 
addition thereto as envisaged under Section 25 of Water 
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1986. Admittedly, no 
such consent was obtained or granted by the DPCC. The said E 
fact has not been placed before the learned single Judge, 
Division Bench or this Court by any of the respondents. The 
DPCC has stated in its counter statement that the Pathological 
Lab is being run by the respondent-owners in
the basement, 
F 
ground floor, first floor and mezzanine floor of the concerned 
property. Thus, it is being run by them not only in violation of 
the Master Plan for Delhi 2001 but also MPD-2021. 
12. It is further contended thatthe area illegally permitted 
by the MCD in pursuance of the alleged Regularisation G 
Certificate dated 11.07.2006 mentions the area to be 222.25 
sq meters and confines the activity of respondent-owners to 
the ground floor and the first floor only. However, the 
respondent-owners have been using the area much more in H 
excess of the said permitted area by using the mezzanine floor
932 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A of the building also. The said fact pleaded by the appellant is 
corroborated by the inspection report submitted by the DPCC 
in these proceedings. It is further contended that the 
respondent-owners have neither refuted nor pleaded anything 
contrary to the same, but on the other hand, for the first time 
B before this Court, the learned senior counsel on behalf of the 
respondent-owners have stated that the mezzanine floor does 
not exist in the building. This plea urged by the respondent-
owners is not only contrary to the pleadings before the courts 
below but the same is made with a ma/a fide intention and is 
C an incorrect statement of fact and therefore, requested this 
Court to reject the said contention. 
13. Further, it is contended by the learned senior counsel 
that the appellant has been complaining about the set-back 
D area of the building being illegally covered by the respondent-
owners contrary to the building bye-laws and for the first time 
before this Court, a new plea has been taken by the respondent-
owners that they have kept the generator sets in the set-back 
area of the building allegedly because they have not been 
E allowed to install it on the terrace of the concerned building. 
This alleged fact is contrary to the facts and the title deeds of 
the property. The terrace in the building was purchased by the 
alJ>pellant separately and he is the exclusive owner of the 
F terrace. 
14. It is further
contended that the appellant is living on 
the second floor of the building and enough damage has been 
done to the same and cracks have occurred therein due to the 
installation of heavy equipments including generator sets. The 
G effect of such installation of such heavy equipments like 
generator sets on the terrace is not only dangerous but would 
also make it impossible for the appellant as well as the 
surrounding neighboring residents to live peacefully. 
H 
15. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel for
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
933 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
the appellant that the impugned order is liable to be set aside A 
as the dispute between the parties is not a private dispute 
and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are required in law. to take 
appropriate legal action against the respondent-owners to 
stop the illegal and unauthorized activities in the concerned 
building. These activities of running the Pathological Lab are B 
also contrary to Clause 7 of the conditions mentioned in the 
Regularisation Certificate dated 11.07.2006 issued by the 
MCD to the respondent-owners for running of the Pathological 
Lab in the concerned building. 
c 
16. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel on 
behalf of the respondents have alleged that the appellant 
himself has not approached this Court with clean hands and 
has deliberately suppressed material information and 
documents with a view to prejudice this Court against the D 
answering respondents and has raised unauthorized 
construction on the roof above the second floor of the 
concerned building. It is alleged by them that this appeal filed 
by the appellant is motivated by personal animus against the 
answering respondents. It is further contented that the E 
contentions urged by the appellant both in the writ petition and 
in this appeal do not raise any question of law or question of 
public importance, therefore, the same does not call for 
interference of this Court. 
17. It is further contended by
the learned senior counsel 
F 
for the respondent-owners that the Delhi Master Plan 2001 
classifies a Clinical Laboratory under Section 2 - Development 
Code, Clause 8 (3) SI. No. 077 as an activity permissible in a 
residential area. A clinical laboratory being a utility service is G 
permitted to be run in both the residential and commercial 
areas and this facility must be easily accessible and in close 
proximity to people in residential zones. 
H
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201515 S.C.R. 
A 
18. Further, it is submitted by them that the MPD-2021 
which came into force on 07.02.2007, provides for Mixed Use 
Regulations. Regulation 15.7.2 reads thus: 
"15.7.2 The minimum ROW of a street or stretch of road 
B 
on which other activities are permissible is as follows: 
c 
In A & B Colonies*: 18m ROW in regular plotted 
development; 1-3. Added vide S.O. 2034(E) dated 12-
08-2008 184 Notes 
In C & D colonies: 18 m ROW in regular residential plotted 
development" 
19. Further, it is submitted that as Hauz Khas area has 
been classified as a Class "B" Colony as per MPD 2021, the 
D aforesaid activities of the respondent-owners in the residential 
building are permissible in a Class "B" Colony, having an 18 
m ROW in regular plotted development. It is further contended 
that it is relevant to mention that there is no restriction with 
respect to the area that can be used for a Nursing Home, Clinic, 
E Dispensary, Pathological Lab and Diagnostic Centre covered 
by Regulation 15.7.1 oftheMPD2021. 
20. It is further submitted by the respondent-owners in 
their written submissions that they have installed generator sets 
F for running their Pathological Lab in the rear set back area of 
the concerned building, since the appellant did not permit 
access to the roof of the second floor for utilities even though 
they have a right of access to the terrace to repair and clean 
the overhead tanks, to install TV antenna etc., under
their 
G registered sale deed of the building. Further, it is contended 
by the learned senior counsel for the respondent-owners of 
the Pathological Lab that they have not constructed any shed 
in the rear set-back area and generators have been kept in 
H the sound-proof enclosures and the noise generated from them 
is within the permissible limits and therefore, there is no air 
and sound pollution in the area.
AN I RUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
935 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]. 
21. Further, It is contended by the learned senior counsel A 
for the respondent-owners that respondent No. 5, DPCC has 
given the permission to install the aforesaid generators in the 
building after conducting an inspection of the same and 
certified that the air quality standards are being complied with 
by them. Further, as advised by DPCC, the respondent-owners B 
have installed stacks above the height of the building but the 
appellant broke the stack on several occasions, and thereby 
prevented the respondent-owners from complying with the said 
directions. Ultimately, the respondent-owners were 
constrained to construct a steel structure which is independent C 
of the building, so as to ensure that the exhaust pipe of the 
generators is raised by 1.5. meters above the height of the 
building. It is further contended that the respondent-owners 
have only one gas-cylinder connection in the Pathological Lab, D 
which is used for making tea, coffee etc. for the Doctors and 
staff who are working in the lab, which cannot be termed as 
hazardous material as it is only used for domestic purposes. 
22. We have heard the learned senior counsel for both 
the parties and after considering the rival legal contentions E 
urged by them, we have to answer each one of the rival legal 
contentions in seriatim by assigning the following reasons. 
23. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of 
this
appeal, the parties have tried to reach an amicable F 
settlement, however the same remained unsuccessful. Be as 
that may, this nature of ligation cannot be allowed to be settled 
between the parties as it involves public interest and violation 
of rule of law. 
G 
24. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single 
Judge and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench in its 
impugned judgment and order on the question that the 
proceedings initiated by the appellant are not in the nature of 
public interest but is only private interest litigation and therefore, H 
the High Court had held that the writ does not lie against the
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A respondents. The said reasoning of the Division Bench in the 
impugned judgment is not acceptable to us based on the 
pleadings and documentary evidence produced before us as 
it is clear that several representations have been made by the 
affected neighbours of the building at different stages with 
B 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 running of the Pathological 
Lab in the building by the respondent-owners amount to 
C 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 and simultaneously he has been fighting for the cause 
0 of all the local residents. This legal principle has been laid 
down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of S. 
P. Gupta and Others v. President of India and Others1, 
which legal principle has been reiterated recently by this Court 
in the case of State Of Uttaranchal v. Ba/want Singh 
E Chaufa/2 after adverting to the entire case law on the question 
of public interest litigation, the relevant paragraph from the 
decision of the S. P. Gupta case (supra) is extracted 
hereunder:-
F 
G 
"17. It may therefore now be taken as well established 
that where a
legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a 
person or to a determinate class of persons by reason 
of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any 
burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional 
or legal provision or without authority of law or any such 
legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened 
and such person or determinate class of persons is by 
reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially 
H 
1· (1981) supp. sec 87 
2· 2010 (3) sec 402
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
or economically disadvantaged position, unable to 
approach the court for relief, any member of the public 
can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, 
order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in 
case of breach of any fundamental right of such person 
or determinate class of persons, in this Court under 
Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or 
injury caused to such person or determinate class of 
persons .......... The court has to innovate new methods 
and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing 
access to justice to large masses of people who are 
denied their basic human rights and to whom freedom 
and liberty have no meaning. 
The only way in which this can be done is by entertaining 
writ petitions and even letters from public-spirited 
individuals seeking judicial redress for the benefit of 
persons who have suffered a legal wrong or a legal injury 
or whose constitutional or legal right has been violated 
but who by reason of their poverty or socially or 
economically disadvantaged position are unable to 
approach the court for .relief ..... We may also point out 
that as a matter of prudence and not as a rule of law, the 
court may confine this strategic exercise of jurisdiction 
to cases where legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a 
determinate class or group of persons or the 
constitutional or legal right of such determinate class
or 
group of persons is violated and as far as possible, not 
entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance 
of a third party, where there is an effective legal-aid 
organisation which can take care of such cases." 
The relevant para from Ba/want Singh's case is extracted 
hereunder 
937 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
938 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
33. The High Courts followed this Court and exercised 
similar jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
The Courts expanded the meaning of right to life and 
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
The rule of locus standi was diluted and the traditional 
meaning of "aggrieved person" was broadened to 
provide access to justice to a very large section of the 
society which was otherwise not getting any benefit from 
the judicial system. We would like to term this as the first 
phase or the golden era of the public interest litigation. 
We would briefly deal with important cases decided by 
this Court in the first phase after broadening the definition 
of "aggrieved person". 
34.This Court in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari 
Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, at AIR p. 317, held 
that: 
"62 . ... Our current processual jurisprudence is not of 
individualisticAnglo-lndian mould. It is broad-based 
and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice 
through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation' and 
'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in 
large numbers seeking remedies in courts through 
collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an 
expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of 
participative justice in our democracy. We have no 
hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause 
of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual
litigation is becoming obsolescent in some 
jurisdictions." 
35. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India this Court 
entertained a petition even of an unregistered association 
espousing the cause of over downtrodden or its 
H 
members observing that the cause of "little Indians" can
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J,] 
be espoused by any person having no interest in the 
matter. In the said case, this Court further held that where 
a public interest litigation alleging that certain workmen 
are living in bondage and under inhuman conditions is 
initiated, it is not expected of the Government that it 
should raise a preliminary objection that no fundamental 
rights of the petitioners or the workmen on whose behalf 
. the petition has been filed, have b~en infringed. On the 
contrary, the Government should welcome an inquiry by 
the Court, so that if it is found that there are in fact bonded 
labourers or even if the workers are not bonded in the 
strict sense of the term as defined in the Bonded Labour 
System (Abolition) Act, 1976 butthey are made to provide 
forced labour or are consigned to a life of utter deprivation 
and degradation, such a situation can be set right by the 
Government. 
36. Public interest litigation is not in the nature of 
adversarial litigation but it is a challenge and an 
opportunity to the Government and its officers to make 
basic human rights meaningful to the deprived and 
vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them 
social and economic justice which is the signature tune 
of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must 
welcome public interest litigation because it would 
provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor 
and the downtrodden are getting their
social and 
economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to 
remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands 
of strong and powerful sections of the community and 
whether social and economic justice has become a 
meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a 
teasing illusion and a promise of unreality, so that in case 
the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to 
be true, they can in discharge of their constitutional 
939 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure 
to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
37. In Fertilizer Corpn. Kamagar Union v. Union of India 
this Court observed that: 
"43. Public interest litigation is part of the process of 
participative justice and 'standing' in civil litigation of 
that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial 
doorsteps." 
38. In Ramsharan Autyanuprasi v. Union of India this 
Court observed that the public interest litigation is for 
making basic human rights meaningful to the deprived 
and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure 
them social, economic and political justice. 
41. The development of public interest litigation has been 
an extremely significant development in the history of the 
Indian jurisprudence. The decisions of the Supreme Court 
in the 1970s loosened the strict locus standi requirements 
to permit filing of petitions on behalf of marginalised and 
deprived sections of the society by public spirited 
individuals, institutions and/or bodies. The higher courts 
exercised wide powers given to them under Articles 32 
and 226 of the Constitution. The sort of remedies sought 
from the Courts in the public interest litigation goes 
beyond award of remedies to the affected individuals 
and groups. In suitable cases, the Courts have also given 
guidelines and directions. The Courts have monitored 
implementation of
legislation and even formulated 
guidelines in the absence of legislation. If the cases of 
the decades of 70s and 80s are analysed, most of the 
public interest litigation cases which were entertained
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
941 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
by the courts are pertaining to enforcement of fundamental 
A 
rights of marginalised and deprived sections of the 
society. This can be termed as the first phase of the public 
interest litigation in India." 
25. Apart from this, reliance has been placed by the s 
learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant upon the 
judgment of this Court to maintain the Writ Petition as a PIL as 
the appellant is a person who is also empowered to file a 
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging 
the validity of the Regularisation Certificate as per the decision C 
of this Court in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P.3, 
wherein it was held thus:-
"8. The first question is whether the appellant had locus 
standi to file a petition in the High Court under Article 
D 
226 of the Constitution. This Court in Calcutta Gas 
Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal 
dealing with the question of locus standi of the appellant 
in that case to file a petition under Article 226 of the 
Constitution in the High Court, observed: 
E 
"Article 226 confers a very wide power on the High Court 
to issue directions a11d writs of the nature mentioned 
therein for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred 
by Part Ill or for any other purpose. It is, therefore, clear 
F 
that persons other than those claiming fundamental right 
can also approach the court seeking a relief thereunder.
The Article in terms does not describe the classes of 
persons entitled to apply thereunder; but it is implicit in 
the exercise ofthe extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief 
G 
asked for must be one to enforce a legal right .... The 
right that can be enforced under Article 226 also shall 
ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the 
3. AIR 1966 sec 828 
H
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs 
like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to 
be relaxed or mqdified." 
....... This Court held in the decision cited supra that 
B 
"'ordinarily" the petitioner who seeks to file an application 
under Article 226 of the Constitution should be one who 
has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of 
the petition. A personal right need not be in respect of a 
proprietary interest: it can also relate to an interest of a 
c 
trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases, as the 
expression "ordinarily" indicates, a person who has been 
prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority 
can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even 
fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof. The 
D 
appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. 
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at his 
instance is, therefore, maintainable." 
26. In view of the above mentioned decisions of this 
E Court, we hold that the findings and reasons recorded by both 
the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High 
Court that it is not public interest litigation is contrary to the law 
laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court and other 
decisions referred to supra. The said reasoning is liable to be 
F set aside, accordingly it is set aside. 
27. Further, notice was issued by the High Court for 
limited purpose
to examine the correctness of Clauses 3 and 
7 of the Regularisation Certificate issued to the respondent-
G owners by the MCD in exercise of its authority to grant the 
/ 
same. However, the MCD has ignored the relevant aspects of 
the case of deviation of the then relevant Delhi Master Plan 
and unauthorised use of the basement, ground floor, mezzanine 
floor and the first floor of the concerned building. The said act 
H
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
943 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
of the MCD is contrary to the legal principles laid down by this A 
Court in the case of Priyanka Estate International (P) Ltd. 
v. State of Assam', wherein it was held thus:-
"56. Even though on earlier occasions also, under similar 
circumstances, there have been judgments of this Court 
which should have been a pointer to all the builders that 
raising unauthorised construction never pays and is 
against the interest of society at large, but, no heed has 
been given to it by the builders. Rules, regulations and 
bye-laws are made by Corporations or by Development 
Authorities, taking in view the larger public interest of the 
society and it is a bounden duty of the citizens to obey 
and follow such rules which are made for their benefit. If 
unauthorised constructions are allowed to stand or given 
a seal of approval by court then it is bound to affect the 
public at large. An individual has a right, including a 
fundamental right, within a reasonable limit, it inroads 
the public rights leading to public inconvenience, 
therefore, it is to be curtailed to that extent." 
B 
c 
D 
E 
28. In addition to this, the appellant being a resident of 
the second floor of the building, questioned the legality and 
validity of the Regularisation Certificate issued by the MCD 
under Clause 15.7.1 of the MPD-2021 approved by the 
Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. In the F 
second Writ
Petition (c) 225 of2008 filed by the appellant, the 
challenge was on the basis of the said certificate, for which 
the learned single Judge at the time of preliminary hearing of 
the said petition, has issued limited notice dated 11.1.2008 to 
the respondents with respect to Clause 3 of the Regularisation G 
Certificate dealing with parking arrangements which would 
affect the neihbouring local residents of the colony and Clause 
7 of the Regularisation Certificate which states that the 
4· (2010) 2 sec 21 
H
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A respondent-owners shall ensure no nuisance or hardship would 
be created forthe local residents in running the Nursing Home. 
However, contrary to this, they have been running a large 
Pathological Lab in the name of Nursing Home, named Dr. 
Dang's Diagnostic Centre in the basement, ground floor, 
B mezzanine floor and the first floor of the building. The 
respondent-owners have refuted the same. 
29. According to the learned senior counsel on behalf 
of the respondent-owners of the Pathological Lab, the 
C mezzanine floor does not exist in the building. This plea is 
contrary to the pleadings made before the courts below and 
even before this Court and the same is made with a ma/a fide 
intention to conceal unauthorized construction and 
contravention of the building bye-laws. Therefore, the said plea 
D cannot be accepted by us. 
30. Further, we are satisfied that the issuance of the 
said Regularisation Certificate in favour of the respondent-
owners of the Pathological Lab is in contravention of the 
E building bye-laws and MPD-2021 referred to supra. The 
relevant paras from the MPD 2021 are extracted hereunder 
for better appreciation of our conclusions on the contentious 
points raised by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the 
F 
G 
H 
parties:-
"15.1 GOVERNING PRINCIPLES FOR MIXED USE 
i. Mixed Use means the provision for non-residential 
activity in residential premises. 
15.2 MIXED USE IN RESIDENTIALAREAS
15.2.1. DIFFERENTIATEDAPPROACH 
i) The need for differentiated approach to mixed use 
policy arises from the fact that Delhi, being the country's 
capital and an important centre of economic activity has 
a large diversity in the typology of residential areas. Apart
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
from the planned residential colonies built as part of 
Lutyens' Delhi as well as through the process of planned 
development undertaken by the Delhi Development 
Authority, there are authorized residential areas in the 
Walled City, Special areas and urban villages. Other 
planned areas include resettlement colonies and pre-
Delhi Development Act colonies, including post-partition 
rehabilitation colonies and pre-1962 residential colonies 
as per list given inAnnexure I. There are also regularized-
unauthorized colonies; unauthorized colonies as well as 
slums and jhuggi jhompri clusters in various parts of Delhi. 
iii) Hence, it is proposed to follow a differentiated 
approach in the application of the mixed-use policy in 
Delhi. The differentiated approach would be based on 
categorization of colonies from A to G as adopted by 
MCD for unit area method of property tax assessment 
as applicable on 7.9.2006. Any change in the 
categorization of these colonies shall not be made 
applicable for the purpose of this chapter without prior 
approval of Central Government. 
15.3.2 The extent of Mixed Use permissible in various 
categories of colonies is further clarified as follows: 
1. In colonies falling in categories A and B 
No commercial activities will be permissible in the 
colonies of A & B categories except the following: 
"Other activity" restricted to guest houses, Nursing 
Homes and pre-primary
schools, as defined in para 
15.7.1, subject to conditions contained in para 15.7, in 
plots abutting roads of minimum 18m ROW in regular 
plotted development, since these activities are in the 
945 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
946 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
nature of 'Public and Semi-Public' facilities. New banks 
and fitness centres, wellness centres and NGOs will not 
be permissible. Banks which existed as on 7.9.2006, 
fitness centres, wellness centres and NGOs which 
existed as on 7.2.2007, (as defined in para 15.7.1), in 
accordance with notifications issued in this regard from 
time to time, and are on plots abutting roads of minimum 
18m ROW, on the date of notification, shall however, 
continue.] 
15.4 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 
GOVERNING MIXED USE 
(ii) Where there are more than one dwelling units in a 
residential plot, each of the dwelling units will be 
permitted to have only type of Mixed Use activity (either 
retail shop as per para 15.6. or professional activity or 
any one of the other activities listed in para 15. 7). 
15.5 PERMISSIBLEAND NON-PERMISSIBLE USES 
Any trade or activity involving any kind of obnoxious. 
hazardous, inflammable. non-compatible and polluting 
substance or process shall not be permitted. 
15.7 OTHER ACTIVITY 
15.7.1 Subject to the general conditions given in para 
15.4 and additional conditions given in para 15. 7 .3, the 
following public and semi-public activities shall also be 
permitted in the residential plots abutting roads of 
minimum ROW prescribed in 15.7.2, whether or notthe 
road is notified as Mixed Use street: 
(a) Pre-primary school (including nursery I Montessori 
school; creche.)
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
(b) i. Nursing Home 
ii. Clinic. Dispensary. Pathology lab and Diagnostic 
center. 
15. 7 .2 The minimum ROW of a street or stretch of road 
on which the above-mentioned other activities are 
· permissible is as follows: 
In A & B Colonies: 18m ROW in regular plotted 
development; 
iii. .... pathology labs shall be permissible: on minimum 
plot size of 100 sgm in regular plotted development on 
13.5 m ROW in C & D colonies and 9 m ROW in E. F & 
G colonies. However, the minimum plot size shall be 50 
sgm for clinics, dispensaries and pathology labs running 
in these colonies and also in E, F and G category 
colonies. In Walled City, Walled city extension. villages 
and unauthorized-regularized colonies. conditions of plot 
size and minimum ROW shall not be applicable . 
. . . . (emphasis supplied by this Court) 
31. Now, we have to examine whether this residential 
property comes under the Mixed Use or not. Clause 15.2.1 (i) 
referred to supra clearly states in the Master Plan issued by 
947 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the Planning Authority under the heading Mixed Use in the F 
area in question to meet the growing demand of commercial 
activities and overcome the shortfall of commercial space. A 
liberalised provision of Mixed Use in the residential areas has 
been adopted adhering to the requisites of the environment 
while achieving better synergy between work-place, residence G 
and transportation. 
32. Further,
the report of the DPCC clearly states that 
the Regularisation Certificate was granted for running a Nursing 
Home whereas a Pathological Lab in the name of Dr. Dang H 
Diagnostic Centre has been functioning on the basement,
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A ground floor of the building since the year 1995. In view of the 
Clause 15.4(ii) of the MPD-2021, the general terms and 
conditions governing Mixed Use provides that where there are 
more than one dwelling units in a residential plot, each of the 
dwelling units will be permitted to have only type of Mixed Use 
B activity (either retail shop as per Clause 15.5 or professional 
activity or any one of the other activities as provided in Clause 
15. 7). In the residential plot in question there are more than 
two residential flats and once again such kind of use of 
premises in the dwelling unit will be permitted to have only one 
C kind of activity. 
33. Further, we have examined the 'Major Highlights 
of the Master Plan of Delhi 2021'as penned by the Ministry of 
Urban Development, wherein, the focal points of the Master 
D Plan have been discussed. The relevant point (n) from the 
above said Highlights is extracted hereunder:-
" (n) Health Infrastructure: 
*Health facilities proposed to achieve norms of 5 beds I 
E 
1000 population 
F 
G 
H 
* Enhancement of FAR for hospitals and other health 
facilities. 
* Nursing Homes, clinics etc. also allowed under relaxed 
Mixed Use Norms." 
34. Further, it is necessary for us to examine Clause 
.15.8 of MPD 2021 which states thus: 
"15.8 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY 
i. 
(iii) In the case of plotted development with single 
dwelling unit, professional activity shall be permissible
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
on any one floor only, but restricted to less than 50% of 
the permissible or sanctioned FAR whichever is less on 
that plot. 
(iv) 
[Professional activity in basements is permissible 
in plotted development, subject to relevant provisions of 
Building Bye-Laws, structural safety norms and fire safety 
clearance. In case. the use of basement for professional 
activity leads to exceeding the permissible FAR on the 
plot. such FAR in excess shall be used subject to payment 
of appropriate charges prescribed with the approval of 
Government.]" 
(Emphasis laid down by this Court) 
From a careful reading of the above provision emphasised by 
949 
A 
B 
c 
us, it is clear that if the use of basement for professional activity 
exceeds the FAR, then such excess usage shall be subject to D 
payment of appropriate charges prescribed with the approval 
of the Government of India. Neither the MCD nor the 
respondent-owners in their pleadings have brought this fact to 
the notice of this Court that they have complied with the above E 
said provision by paying the appropriate charges for usage of 
the basement when the same is exceeding the permissible 
FAR on the plot of the building. 
35. From a careful reading of the aforesaid extracted 
portions of the Master Plan 2021 and upon which reliance has F 
been placed by Mr. H.P.Rawal, learned senior counsel on 
behalf of appellant and Mr. K. K. Venugopal and Ms. lndu
Malhotra, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents, 
we have to hold that the grant of Regularisation Certificate G 
under Mixed Use Regulations of the MPD 2021 giving 
·retrospective effect enabling respondent-owners to run a 
Pathological Lab in the guise of a Nursing Home in the 
residential area falling in categories "A" and "B" is not 
sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Further, in view H
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015J 5 S.C.R. 
A of theJacts of the case on hand, the relevant provisions of MPD 
2021 and the evidence on record, we have to hold that the writ 
appeal filed by the appellant has been wrongly dismissed by 
the Division Bench of the High Court without examining the 
legality and validity of the issuance of the Regularisation 
B Certificate on 11.07.2006 allegedly under the MPD 2021 which 
was still at the proposal stage at that time and the said Plan 
came into effect only on 07.02.2007, enabling the respondent-
owners to use the premises for commercial activity which in 
C our view is prohibited in the residential plot of the building under 
the various Clauses of the Master Plan 2021 extracted above. 
36. Further, the said Regularisation Certificate granted 
by the MCD is contradictory to the Mixed Use Regulations 
under the Delhi Master Plan 2001 as well which was relevant 
D and in force at the time of granting of the Regularisation 
Certificate to the respondent-owners. The provision for Mixed 
Use under the MPD 2001 clearly states that the area/street for 
Mixed Use activity should be identified by conducting a study 
of the impact on the traffic in that area/street in which such 
E Mixed Use activity is likely to take place and also evaluate the 
environmental needs and impact on municipal services of the 
area if Mixed Use is allowed. In the present case, no report or 
document of evaluation or study conducted by the MCD has 
F been
brought to the notice of the courts below or this Court to 
establish and prove that the concerned building is an 
appropriate premises to allow a non-residential or Mixed Use 
activity in residential premises. The Mixed Use Regulations 
under MPD 2001 further states that if after the above said 
G evaluation and study it is found that the Mixed Use activity in 
the street/area is feasible, then such activity shall be allowed 
only on the ground floor of the premises to the extent of 25% of 
the area or 50sqm, whichever is less and that such 
establishment can be run by the resident of the dwelling unit 
H only. In the present case, the Pathological Lab is being run on
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. ·MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
951 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
the basement, ground floor, first floor and the mezzanine floor A 
and the respondent-owners of the Pathological Lab are not 
the residents of the concerned building, thus it is a clear violation 
of the provisions for Mixed Use of residential premises under 
the Master Plan 2001. The Master Plan 2001 also provides 
that activities such as running of a nursing home should not be B 
allowed, whereas in the Regularisation Certificate, it is clearly 
stated that permission is being granted for running of a nursing 
home. The relevant paras of the said plan are extracted 
hereunder: 
"CLAUSE 10 MIXED USE REGULATIONS: 
(NON-RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY ON RESIDENTIAL 
PREMISES) 
Mixed Use here, essentially means permission of non-
residential activity on residential plot or residential flat. 
Specific provision for Mixed Use have been given for 
walled city, Karol Bagh and other parts of the Special 
Area in the relevant sections in the Master Plan. 
At the time of preparation of Zonal (divisional) plans, in 
residential plotted development in areas other than the 
Walled City and Karol Bagh and other urban renewal 
areas, streets of Mixed Use activity shall be identified by 
(i) conducting a traffic study in each individual case to 
see whether after permission of Mixed Use activity, there 
will be no adverse effect in traffic circulation in that area/ 
street and it would be built to take additional traffic
which 
is likely to be generated because of the Mixed Use. (ii) by 
evaluation its impact on the municipal· services and 
environmental needs of the area. 
As a part of the traffic study, the traffic management 
solutions like traffic free pedestrianised streets/areas 
and on way traffic etc. could also be considered for 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
952 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 5 S.C.R. 
introduction as a solution to the traffic/parking problem 
of the area. 
In case it is found feasible to permit Mixed Use in a 
street/area, the same would be subject to the following 
conditions: 
(i) The commercial activity allowed shall be only on 
the ground floor to the extent of 25% or 50 sgm which 
ever is less. 
(ii) The establishment shall be run only by the resident 
C 
of the dwelling unit. 
(iii) 
The following activities shall not be allowed: 
(a) Retail Shops .. . 
(b)Repair Shops ... . 
o 
(c) Service Shops ... 
(d)Nursing Home 
" 
In view of the reasoning discussed above, the impugned 
E judgment passed by the Division Bench in not accepting the 
case of the appellant is not only erroneous on factual position 
but also error in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 
1 37. The learned senior counsel for the respondent-
F owners has placed strong reliance on the grant of 
Regularisation Certificate dated 11.07.2006 by the MCD in 
favour of the respondent-owners to justify that the running of 
the Pathological Lab in the concerned building is valid and 
legal as the said certificate was granted by the competent 
G authority. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the 
Regularisation Certificate issued by the MCD. The relevant 
portion of the Certificate for running the Pathological 
Laboratory in the concerned building is extracted hereunder: 
H 
" .... the competent authority has granted 
permission
for running a clinical Pathological
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
Laboratory at ground floor and first floor (area for this 
purpose is 222. 25 sqm) in premises No. D-1, Hauz 
Khas, New Delhi under the Mixed Land Use 
Regulations of Government of India, subject to following 
conditions: 
xxxxxxx 
xxxxxxx 
3. All parking arrangements will be made by you within 
the plot in question. 
4. No commercial 
activity in the form of canteen or restaurant will be 
permitted. However, catering will be allowed only for 
the residents of the nursing home. 
7. The applicant will ensure that no nuisance or hardship 
is created for the local residents ... 
You are required to deposit permission fee for the 
financial years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 and 2006-
2007 amounting to Rs.8,39,9161- on account of 
Regularisation of running of nursing home in the 
aforesaid premises within a week." 
38. On examining the Regularisation Certificate issued 
953 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
by the MCD, it is clear that the Regularisation Certificate is for 
running of a Pathological Lab whereas the conditions 
mentioned therein are directed towards running of a nursing 
F 
home. Therefore, there is a lot of inconsistency within the 
Regularisation Certificate itself and due to the same, the 
Regularisation Certificate cannot be accepted by us as it is 
impermissible not only in law but also because the same was G 
granted without seeking permission from the High Court during 
the pendency of the earlier Writ
Petition No. 8808 of 2004 
filed by the appellant. 
39. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we have to hold 
·that the grant of the Regularisation Certificate with the alleged 
H
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A retrospective effect to run the Nursing Home in favour of 
respondent-owners w.e.f. 11.7.2006 cannot be accepted by 
us and the same is liable to be quashed. 
40. With regard to the environmental impact due the 
B running of the Pathological Lab in the concerned building, we 
first examine Clause 15.5 of MPD 2021, which clearly states 
that any trade or activity involving any kind of abnoxious, 
hazardous, inflammable activities, non-compatible activities 
and polluting substance or process shall not be permitted. It 
C is worthwhile to extract the definition of 'Process' which in the 
absence of a definition under the Environment Protection Laws, 
we are required to borrow it from Oxford Dictionary: 
"A systematic series of mechanized or chemical operation 
D 
that are performed in order to produce something." 
E 
F 
It is also necessary to extract the definition of "hazardous 
substance" under Section 2 (e) of the Environment (Protection) 
Act, 1986 which word occurred in Clause 15.5 of MPD 2021. 
"(e) "hazardous substance" means any substance or 
preparation which, by reason of its chemical or physico-
chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm 
to human beings, other living creatures, plant, micro-
organism, property or the environment;" 
41. As per the report of the DPCC, it is clear that 
chemical substances emitted from the Pathological Lab will 
be obnoxious, non-compatible, polluting and therefore, the
same are not permissible under Clause 15.5 of the MPD 2021. 
G Further, when the respondent-owners started the Diagnostic 
Centre, they employed about more than 50 people and installed 
25 Air Conditioners, two diesel generator sets of 25 KVA and 
40 KVA each in the set back area, along with kerosene oil 
H tanks, gas cylinders and electric panels. Around 300 patients' 
visit the centre per day and more than 100 cars are parked in
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
955 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
the vicinity. All these factors lead to air pollution which is in A 
contravention of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) 
Act, 1981. At present, 80 employees are working and around 
300 patients visit the Pathological Lab every day and vehicles 
are parked in and around the surrounding area which is also 
creating a parking problem to the residents of the area. The B 
nuisance created by all these factors not only leads to air 
pollution but also noise pollution to a great extent. In this regard, 
it is necessary for us to examine the decision of this Court in 
the case of Noise Pollution (\1,1 in RE5 at paras 11, 103 and 
104 wherein it was held that noise generated upto unpleasant C 
or obnoxious levels violates the rights of the people to a 
peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by 
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The said paras are quoted 
hereunder:-
"11. Those who make noise often take shelter behind 
Article 19(1 )A pleading freedom of speech and right to 
expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right 
to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are 
not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to 
create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with 
the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, 
others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody 
can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he
has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or 
mind of others. Nobody can indulge into aural 
aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech 
and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so 
as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a 
noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels then the 
person speaking is violating the right of others to a 
peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed 
by Article 21. Article 19(1 )A cannot be pressed into 
5· c2005) 5 sec 733 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
956 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed 
by Article 21. 
103. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 
1981 Noise was included in the definition of air pollutant 
B 
in Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act in 1987. 
Thus, the provisions of the Air Act, became applicable in 
respect of noise pollution, also. 
104. The Environment (Protection)Act, 1986. Although 
c 
there is no specific provision to deal with noise pollution, 
the Act confers powers on Government of India to take 
measures to deal with various types of pollution including 
noise pollution." 
0 
42. Further, it was held in this case that noise was 
included in the definition of "air pollutant" in the Air (Prevention 
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and therefore, the provisions 
of the said Act became applicable in respect of the noise 
pollution also. It was also held that although there is no specific 
E provision to deal with noise pollution, the Environment 
(Protection) Act, 1986 confers powers on the Government of 
India to take measures to deal with various types of pollution 
including noise pollution. 
F 
43. Further, on examining the evidence on record, 
particularly the photographs depicting the area in and around 
the building, It is clear that large diesel generator sets have 
been erected by the respondent-owners in the set-back area 
which is an illegal structure in the residential premises and is 
G in
contravention of the building bye laws and zonal regulations 
of the MCD. 
44. The running of this large Pathological Lab has led 
to emission of hazardous substances and in that process 
H human beings, plants, micro organisms, and other living 
creatures' are being exposed to harmful physico-chemical
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
957 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
properties. Not only this, they also create pollution which A 
contaminates water on account of the discharge of chemical 
properties used in the process of running the Pathological Lab, 
causing nuisance and harm to public health and safety of the 
residents of the area. This fact is certified by the DPCC in its 
report dated 4.8.2008. The usage of such generator sets has B 
led to the damage of the building and cracks have been found 
in the building structure. The explanation sought to be given by 
the respondent-owners is that the aforesaid generator sets 
were installed in the set-back area as the appellant has not 
permitted to install the same on the terrace of the building. C 
The objection of the appellant installing the same in the terrace 
is that he has purchased the said area and the appellant is 
living on the second floor and therefore, if the generator sets 
are installed on the terrace, it would be completely impossible D 
for him to live on the second floor of the premises due to the 
sound and air pollution caused by the generator sets. It would 
not only affect the appellant and his family but also the other 
neighbouring residents of the locality. 
45. It is an undisputed fact that the consent was not E 
obtained by the respondent-owners from DPCC under Section 
25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act which 
states that no person shall without the previous
consent of 
DPCC establish or take any steps to establish any industry, F 
operation or process or any treatment and disposal system or 
any extension or addition thereto which is likely to discharge 
sewage or trade effluent into a stream or well or sewer or land. 
It is mandatory under the said provision to first obtain consent 
from DPCC and admittedly such consent has neither been G 
. · obtained by the respondent-owners nor granted by the 
respondent No.5, DPCC, nor has the same been placed 
before the learned single Judge or the Division Bench or this 
Court. The running of the Pathological Lab for which the 
generator sets and other heavy equipments have been installed H
958 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
\ 
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 
A not only create sound pollution and air pollution but also the 
same is in contravention of the Water, Air and the Environment 
Protection Acts referred to supra. Therefore, in view of the 
relevant provisions of law referred to supra, the facts of the 
case and the evidence on record, we have to hold that the 
B running of the Pathological Lab by the respondent-owners in 
the concerned building is in violation of law. In this aspect of 
the matter, we refer to the legal principles laid down by this 
Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of lndia6, 
the 
relevant paragraph from the said case is extracted hereunder: 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"56. On 18-5-1995, Justice R.C. Lahoti (as the former 
Chief Justice of India then was) in the case of ANZ 
Grindlays Bank v. Commr., MCD echoed similar words 
and referred to decision of this Court, observing that the 
word "environment" is of broad spectrum which brings 
within its ambit hygienic atmosphere and ecological 
balance. It is, therefore, not only the duty of the State but 
also the duty of every citizen to maintain hygienic 
environment. There is constitutional imperative on the 
State Government and the municipalities, not only to 
ensure and safeguard proper environment but also an 
imperative duty to take adequate measures to promote, 
protect and improve both the man-made and the natural 
environment. Dealing with the municipal laws providing 
for power of demolition, it was
observed that while 
interpreting municipal legislation framed in public 
interest, a strict constitutional approach must be adopted. 
A perusal of the master plan shows that the public purpose 
behind it is based on historic facts guided by expert 
opinion." 
46. Even though the High Court issued notice in the 
writ petition to examine the case in so far as the Clauses 3 
H 
6· c2oos) a sec 399
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
959 
DELHI [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.] 
and 7 of the Regularisation Certificate, the learned senior A 
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-owners 
contended that the High Court has examined this aspect and 
did not find any contravention of the. aforesaid conditions or 
any illegality committed by the respondent-owners, therefore, 
this Court is required to examine only with regard to the B 
aforesaid Clauses. This contention cannot be accepted by 
· this Court particularly in view of the fact that there is blatant 
violation of the provisions of building bye-laws of MCD in using 
the building for the purpose other than the purpose for which it 
is constructed and further running the Pathological Lab or the C 
Nursing Home is impermissible in the concerned building 
under the Master Plan 2001 or MPD 2021 and also under the 
provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) 
Act, 1986. 
47. The running of the Pathological Lab by the 
respondent-owners creates air and sound pollution, rampantly 
D 
on account of which the public residents' health and peace is 
adversely affected. Therefore, public interest is affected and 
there is violation of rule of law. Hence, we have examined this E 
appeal on all aspects of the matter and on merits. This position 
of law is well settled in the catena of decisions of this Court. 
48. Further, the respondent-owners to justify that the 
Pathological Lab does comply with the safety
measures and F 
environmental regulation as enforced by the Government from 
time to time, have submitted the National Accreditation Board 
G, 
for Testing C\fld Calibration Laboratories (NABL) Certificate 
that has been granted to the Diagnostic Centre. On our 
examination of the said certificate, it is true that the Pathological 
Lab had been granted such NABL certification, however, the 
same was granted on 15.7.2001 and was valid only for three 
years from the date of issue of the certificate i.e. upto 
14.07.2004. No record or document has been produced before H
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A us to prove that the Pathological Lab is still certified under the 
NABL certification. Hence, the above said justification and 
submission cannot be accepted by us. 
49. Further, despite its notice by the MCD and DPCC, 
B the illegal and unlawful activities of the respondent-owners have 
continued. Instead of taking prompt action as provided under 
the provisions of DDAAct, 1957 and the Environment Law 
referred to supra, the MCD proceeded to regularise the illegal 
and unlawful activities of the respondent-owners which has been 
C carrying on since 1995 though it is a party to the writ petition 
proceedings initiated against them for running the Pathological 
Lab on the basement, ground floor, first floor and mezzanine 
floor of the building. Further, the DPCC not only regularised 
the commercial activities of the Pathological Lab run by the 
D respondent-owners under the guise of a 'Nursing Home' with 
retrospective effect but no prompt action was taken under the 
provisions of the Act to either stop it or to demolish the illegal 
structure. 
E 
50. Therefore, both the MCD and the DPCC abdicated 
their statutory duties in permitting the owners to carry on with 
the unlawful activities which inaction despite persistent request 
made by the appellant and the residents of the area did not 
yield any results. The counsel for the MCD made the statement 
F before the courts below and even before this Court that there 
are no
illegal activities on the part of the respondent-owners 
as they are supported by issuance of a Regularisation 
Certificate. In this regard as discussed previously in this 
judgement, the issuance of Regularisation Certificate to run 
G the Pathological Lab in the building is totally impermissible in 
law even though the respondent-owners have placed reliance 
upon Mixed Use of the land in the area as per MPD 2021 
referred to supra. 
H
ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF 
961 
DELHI [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.] 
51. Further, it is necessary for us to make an A 
observation here that the conduct of the MCD and the DPCC 
for their inaction is highly deplorable as they have miserably 
failed to discharge their statutory duties on account of which 
there has been a blatant violation of the rule of law and thereby 
a large number of residents of the locality are suffering on B 
account of the unlawful activities of the respondent-owners, 
whose activities are patronised by both the authorities. 
52. In view of the reasons recorded by us on the relevant 
aspects which have emerged from the pleadings, the questions C 
which were raised and the rival legal contentions urged, we 
have to reject the both factual and legal pleas on behalf of the 
respondent-owners. We also do not accept the reliance placed 
by the learned senior counsel Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao upon the 
National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) D 
. Second Act, 2011 No.20 of 2011, which was valid up to 31 51 
December, 2014 in justification of the inaction and the same 
is wholly untenable in law. The contentions urged by the learned 
senior counsel placing reliance upon the MPD 2021 which 
came into force w.e.f. 07.02.2007 that the respondent-owners E 
are permitted to run the Nursing Home and carry on with the 
Diagnostic Centre in the building placing further reliance upon 
the various judgments of this Court referred to supra are
all 
unfounded and the same cannot be accepted as they are F 
misplaced. 
53. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal is allowed 
and the impugned judgments and orders of both the learned 
single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court are hereby 
set aside and Regularisation Certificate is quashed and rule G 
is issued. Further, directions are issued to the respondents 
MCD and DPCC to see that the unlawful activities of the 
respondent-owners are stopped as per our directions. The 
respondent-owners are directed to close down their H

. 962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 5 S.C.R. 
A establishment of running 'Dr. Dang's Diagnostic Centre' within 
four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment 
by shifting the same to alternative premises and submitting 
the compliance report for the perusal of this Court. If the 
respondent-owners do not comply with the above directions 
B of this Court within four weeks, the MCD is directed to take 
necessary prompt steps for sealing or closing down of all the 
activities undertaken by them in the premises of concerned 
building and submit the compliance report for the perusal of 
C this Court. All the I.As are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed.