NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Friday asked the MCD when the law would take its course against buildings whose plans were unavailable, and sought a clear account of the statutory mechanism governing PG accommodations in Delhi.
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia noted that sanctioned building plans for 1,723 paying guests (PG) could not be traced or verified. It noted that plans were available for only 730 of the 2,453 PG buildings surveyed by the MCD (Municipal Corporation of Delhi) following the Satya Niketan building collapse.
During the hearing, the bench also permitted former IPS officer Kiran Bedi to address the court in the matter. The bench allowed Bedi to address the court when the matter is listed next, after the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there was no objection in principle.
“There are 2453 PGs, you have building plans for only 730. That’s less than one-third. What about the other two thirds? When will law take its course,” the bench asked.
It further asked if the authorities concerned had examined the inadequacy of the existing regulatory mechanism for PG accommodations, observing that the MCD affidavit primarily referred to provisions of the Master Plan.
During the hearing, Mehta, representing MCD, told the court that the corporation was trying to trace the sanctioned building plans and had also asked property owners to provide them.
“Some buildings are 50-60 years old and the authorities are making efforts to trace their plans and other records,” Mehta said.
The bench further asked the authorities about the extent of inspections carried out and sought specific details of buildings being used as PGs. It further questioned the MCD over figures cited in its affidavit regarding demolitions, sealing and show-cause notices, asking whether those figures related specifically to PG buildings or were part of MCD’s general enforcement drive.
Mehta clarified that the figures were general enforcement figures, while seeking time to sit with the officers and obtain instructions.
The bench observed that the present proceedings were concerned with PG accommodations and said the authorities should identify the buildings in which PGs were operating instead of relying on general figures relating to unauthorised construction.
