Justice Pratibha M. Singh, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court Orders Immediate Drain Safety Measures In Okhla Region And Pragmatic Sewage Redevelopment Plan In Non-Confirming Areas
|The Bench has also directed the MCD to construct drain separator walls without waiting for UP NOC and urged the DDA to adopt a practical approach for industrial cluster infrastructure.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to construct a separator wall and place covering slabs over an open drain in Okhla, overriding the delay caused by awaiting a No Objection Certificate from the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department.
The Court noted safety hazards, STP management and redevelopment bottlenecks in 25 non-conforming industrial areas.
The Court asked Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to speed up plan approvals and adopt a pragmatic approach toward aging industrial clusters to stop the flow of untreated sewage into the river.
The Division Bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora was hearing a suo motu matter concerning the following issues: 1. Issue of waterlogging in the Okhla area; 2. Upgradation of Sewage Treatment Plants and installation of new Sewage Treatment Plants; and 3. Non- Confirming Areas
Senior Advocate Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Dubey and Central Government Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for the Respondents.
1. Issue of waterlogging in the Okhla area
On March 28, 2026, the Court had directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) to create a separator wall between the drain and the road which has vehicular movement. It was also directed that reflectors and some lights be installed so that the drain would be visible to passers-by and drivers.
In this regard, the MCD submitted that the reflectors and lights have already been installed. It was added that, as far as the separator walls were concerned, the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department has not yet given the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and hence, no work could be undertaken.
After perusing the images of the open drain in the concerned area, the Court noted, "The open drain without any separator wall or covering can pose a serious safety hazard for the residents and commuters of the area."
The Court directed the MCD to immediately construct the separator wall and put slabs covering the open drain, without awaiting any further ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Uttar Pradesh Irrigation Department.
"The MCD shall also undertake continuous desilting of the drain and the cleaning of the area as well, since the photographs placed on record depicts that there is a large quantum of litter and garbage which is in and around the drain", the Court directed.
2. Upgradation of STPs and installation of new STPs
The Delhi Jal Board ('DJB') had filed a status report and after perusal of those reports, the Court noted that there were various issues which required attention, i.e. i) Upgradation of existing STPs; ii) Augmentation of existing STPs; iii) Creation of new STPs to ensure that untreated sewage/water does not flow directly into the river; iv) Manner in which the treated water flows into the river without again getting mixed with untreated sewage/water.
The Local Commissioner highlighted that the treated water is being discharged again and mixed with the untreated water; therefore, the drains would have to be laid in respect of the new STPs.
The Court asked DJB to give top priority to this aspect.
3. Non- Confirming Areas
The Court said that the work for re-development in the areas was to commence pursuant to several orders passed. Various agencies, who had to draw up the plans in these colonies, have submitted plans in respect of 25 non-conforming areas to the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (‘DSIIDC’).
It was noted that DSIIDC has forwarded the same to the MCD and the MCD has forwarded the same to the Delhi Development Authority ( ‘DDA’) with a request for relaxation of certain norms from the Master Plan.
However, the DDA did not reply to this, which caused a complete stalemate in the work to be undertaken in these 25 non-conforming areas, the Court added.
The Court directed, "In order to fix the timelines for the approval of the plans and for considering relaxation of certain norms etc., let Mr. Manish Verma, Additional Commissioner (Planning), DDA hold a meeting on 31st August, 2026 with all the other authorities and come up with proper timelines as to the manner in which the approvals shall be obtained/granted for the purpose of inter-alia laying down the sewer line and sewage water drain in all these 25 non-confirming areas."
The Court directed that while considering the issue of relaxation of norms it shall be borne in mind by the DDA that these industrial clusters have come up and have existed for several decades without any proper infrastructure or planning. Thus, enforcing newly imposed conditions under fresh Master Plans to these areas would be completely impractical.
It ordered, "The DDA needs to take a pragmatic approach to achieve the re-development with the existing conditions in the best possible manner, as these industries need proper drains, water pipes, sewage lines etc."
There were two non-conforming areas, in respect of which the plans were not submitted, i.e. Samaypur Badli and Phirni Road.
In this regard, the Court observed, "Whenever any re-development of an area is to be considered, these subsequent zonal plans and other notifications amending Master Plan which have expanded the area ought to be considered, failing which these areas would be left out from the re-development."
The Court asked the DDA, the Ministry of Industries, GNCTD, the MCD, along with the DSIIDC, to consider the documents and the averments made in an application by Rural Area Manufacturers Association which highlighted that the layout plan was made only on the basis of the Layout Plan of 2001.
The Court directed, "Let a said meeting for dealing with Samaypur Badli alone be chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, GNCTD, who shall request officials from all the authorities i.e., the DSIIDC, DDA, MCD, M/s Square Design or any other authority, which may be required to participate in the said meeting...The said meeting be held on 2nd September, 2026 at 11:30 AM in the office of Secretary, Ministry of Industries, GNCTD."
As regards Phirni Road, the Court asked the parties to hold a meeting on August 26, 2026.
Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing on September 25, 2026.
Cause Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:7166-DB]
Appearances:
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, Central Government Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Central Government Standing Counsel Pratima N. Lakra, Standing Counsel Prabhsahay Kaur, Panel Counsel Dhruv Rohatgi, Panel Lawyer Deeksha L. Kakar and other advocates.