O R D E R

Serious challenge has been laid to the constitutional validity of the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006. One of the grounds of challenge is that it amounts to legislative over-ruling by the legislators. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for considerable time, we are of the view that many serious questions of law are sought to be raised which require deeper consideration and elaborate submissions. In this view, we admit the petitions and issue rule.

Our attention has been drawn to the report of the Tejender Khann Committee of experts set up by the Government of India to look into various aspects of unauthorized constructions and misuse of premises in Delhi. The said report is dated 13th May, 2006. Reference has already been made to two public notices dated 21st July, 2006 and to the office order of the same date setting up Committee to lookinto various aspects pertaining to farm houses and unauthorized colonies inhabited by affluent sections of the society. We have also perused the notification dated 20th May, 2006 issued by the Ministery of Urban Development issuing directions, one of it beng that all commercial establishments which are required to cease carrying out commercial activities at theire premises by 30th June, 2006 may continue such activities at such premises as they were being carried out on the 1st day of January, 2006 for a period of one year, with effect from 19th May, 2006.

Mr. Satya Prakash, one of the petitioners, appearing in person, challenging the validity of the provisions of the Act, has also sought to raise the issue of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as he submits that posh and affluent colonies being protected and none other colonies inhabited by middle class.

On the question of stay/interim directions, during the course of hearing, learned Solicitor General submits that the matter may be deferred for about ten days so that he can further discuss the matter with the concerned officers. In the interests of justice, we accede to that request. Meanwhile, learned Amicus Curiae may also look into all the aspects relevant on the issue of interim directions to be passed. He may also discuss, if considered appropriate, with the members of the Monitoring Committee constituted by this Court to implement the judgement dated 16th February, 2006, and the writ petitioners, including Mr. P.K.Dave, former Lt. Governor, who has filed an application for intervention.

List the petitions on 10th August, 2006.