REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S). 21806-21807/2017 (ARISING FROM SLP (C) NOS.6626-6627 OF 2015)

SUDAMA SINGH & ORS. ETC.                           PETITIONER(S)

                               VERSUS

DEEPAK MOHAN SPOLIA & ORS. ETC.                    RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

Leave granted. 2. The appellants are aggrieved since the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act has clarified the judgment dated 11.2.2010 beyond what it has actually been intended to be, according to the appellants. 3. Short facts: Four writ petitions were filed as public  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 prayers:

“a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction of similar nature to direct the Government of NCT of Delhi to provide suitable  alternative  accommodation  to  all inhabitants/slum dwellers of New Sanjay Camp. b. Direct the Respondents to compensate the

1

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.  The 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,  therefore,  not  entitled  to relocation, is hereby declared as illegal and unconstitutional. (ii)  In  terms  of  the  extant  policy  for relocation  of  jhuggi  dwellers,  which  is operational  in  view  of  the  orders  of  the Supreme Court, the cases of the petitioners will be considered for relocation. (iii)  Within a  period of  four months  from today,  each  of  those  eligible  among  the petitioners, in terms of the above relocation policy, will be granted an alternative  site as per MPD-2021 subject to proof of residence prior to cut-off date. This will happen in consultation  with  each  of  them  in  a 'meaningful'  manner,  as  indicated  in  this judgment. (iv)  The  State  agencies  will  ensure  that basic  civic  amenities,  consistent  with  the

2

rights to life and dignity of each of the citizens in the jhuggies, are available at the site of relocation. 63. With  the  above  directions,  these petitions are allowed. 64. A certified copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) with the request that wide publicity be given to the operative portion and directions of this judgment in the local language  among  the  residents  of  jhuggi clusters  in  the  city  as  well  as  in  the relocated  sites.  The  DLSA  will  also  hold periodical camps in jhuggi clusters and in relocated sites to make the residents aware of their rights. A copy of this order be also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of National  Capital  Territory  of  Delhi,  for compliance.”

5. It is also relevant to note the opening paragraph of the judgment, which reads as follows:-

“1. The writ petitions have been filed under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India seeking  intervention  of  this  Court  to rehabilitate and relocate the petitioners who were residing at various slum clusters in the Capital  city  to  a  suitable  place  and providing  them  alternative  land  with ownership  rights pursuant  to demolition  of their  ‘jhuggies’  (hutments).   The  subject matter in these four writ petitions revolves around questions of great importance, inter

3

alia, right to shelter of the petitioners and those represented by them on one hand, and, on the other, slum cluster being on ‘Right of Way’ on which basis the agencies of the State seek to oppose them.  Thereafter, all of them were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.”

6. We feel it also apposite to refer to the opening paragraph  of  the  writ  petition,  which  reads  as follows:-

“That  the  petitioners  are  filing  this Writ Petition on behalf of all the residents of  New  Sanjay  Camp  Slum  Cluster  whose jhuggies  were  demolished  by  the  PWD  on 05.02.09 on the ground of making underpass on road  no.13  (Okhla  estate  marg)  which  goes through  Okhla  Phase-I  and  Phase-II  without even ensuring that the poor slum dwellers of the  jhuggies,  who  were  eligible for  rehabilitation/resettlement,  were rehabilitated or relocated on/to some other sites.   The  petitioners,  by  way  of  the present  Writ  Petition,  are  seeking  proper resettlement of the residents in accordance with  the  Rehabilitation  and  Improvement Scheme for Jhuggi Clusters, 2000 framed by the Delhi Government and the Master Plan for Delhi-2021.  The jhuggies of the petitioners and  the  other  residents  of  the  New  Sanjay Camp Slum Cluster were demolished in total contravention of their fundamental right of

4

Right  to  Shelter  under  Article  21  of  the Constitution,  the  International  Conventions and  Principles  of  Natural  Justice.   It  is further submitted that the said jhuggies were demolished in absolute violation of the Delhi Govt’s  Rehabilitation  &  Improvement  Scheme for Jhuggi Clusters, which came into effect from 01.04.2000.”

7. We are informed that a review was attempted by the respondents and the same was dismissed.  Though, a special leave petition was also filed but the same was withdrawn. 8. Be that as it may, since the judgment was not complied  with  in  its  letter  and  spirit,  the  writ petitioners  approached  the  High  Court  invoking  its contempt jurisdiction. 9. The High Court, as per the impugned judgment, has taken  a  view  that  only  the  actual  affected  writ petitioners are entitled to the benefits by way of rehabilitation.   Paragraphs  12  to  14  contain  the relevant consideration, which read as follows:-

“12.  I  have  carefully  considered  the submissions made by the respective sides.  I have also gone through the record.  In my considered opinion, no doubt there were two sets of persons and the writ petition was filed  in  the  nature  of  public  interest litigation.  This is evident from para 1 of

5

the judgment where the court has taken note of the petitioners and the persons to whom they represent but while giving the benefit, it has confined the said benefit only to the petitioners and not to other persons.  This clearly shows that the court intended to draw a distinction between the petitioners and the non-petitioners, whose names are given to the court as annexures to the writ petition. 13. In  my  view  the  use  of  the  word ‘petitioners’ confines this benefit only to the four petitioners and not to any other person even though the petitioners may intend to refer to the same.  Moreover, none of the persons,  whose  names  are  mentioned  in  the list, have come forward to raise a grievance that  they  have  not  been  considered  or allotted an alternative accommodation. 14. In the light of the aforesaid fact, I feel that the present contempt petition is totally  misconceived  and  accordingly,  the same deserves to be dismissed.”

10. Heard  Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  for the respondents. 11. In  our  view,  the  High  Court  went  wrong  in referring only to paragraph 62 of the judgment and not to the other relevant considerations leading to the  decision  which  are  contained  in  the  judgment itself,  which we  have extracted  above.  The whole

6

purpose of paragraph 62 of the judgment is to lend the benefit of the judgment to the affected persons whose names have been furnished in the writ petitions in  the  form  of  annexures  to  the  petitions. Paragraphs 63 and 64 in fact makes it very clear. It is not required that in a public interest litigation all the affected parties should be petitioners.  It is a well-accepted principle of class litigation.  In the facts of the present case, the petitioners have actually furnished the names of persons who have been identified as the persons affected.  Hence the High Court  ought to  have extended  the benefit  to those persons whose names have also been furnished by way of  annexures  to  the  writ  petitions  and  for  whose benefits  the  High  Court  has  rendered  the  judgment dated 11.02.2010.  As rightly pointed out by learned Additional Solicitor General, the eligibility of the persons referred to in the Annexures 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.  12. The  respondents  are  directed  to  implement  the judgment in the light of the clarification we have given in this judgment.  The needful be done within a period of three months from today.

7

13. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. 14. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of. 15. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [AMITAVA ROY]  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 12, 2017.

8