JUDGMENT : 1. This order on two applications having been filed, one on behalf of the Union of India (IA No. 1995) and another on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (IA No. 1998) concerns those traders/professionals stated to be about 25,000 in number, who though otherwise covered by Notifications dated 7-9-2006 and 15-9-2006, have not been given the benefit of those notifications in view of the earlier undertakings filed by them. Only very few had stopped commercial activity in terms of the undertakings. 2. Pursuant to the order made on 15-11-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 539 ], the Monitoring Committee has filed its 15th Report dated 22-11-2006. 3. The Monitoring Committee has reported that total number of 18,443 affidavits have been filed by those who had given undertakings mentioning that they had either stopped the misuse or vacated the premises or closed the shops by locking the establishment. The Monitoring Committee visited a few establishments at random in various zones. The report mentions that, by and large, the traders, who had filed these undertakings/affidavits, have either vacated the premises or kept their establishments under lock and key. There were, however, some violations in respect of establishments mentioned in the enclosed statement which have been marked as Annexure ‘A’ to the Report. 4. Subject to what we note hereinafter, persons who have either earlier or now have stopped commercial activity in terms of the undertakings/affidavits filed but are covered by the two notifications abovenoted, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, are temporarily relieved of the undertakings and placed on a par with others covered by Direction 3 of the order dated 29-9-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 456 ]. The conditions stipulated in the said Direction 3 would be applicable to such traders/professionals. The present order is in continuation of the orders passed on 29-9-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 7 SCC 456 ], 18-10-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 2006 SCC OnLine SC 33], 6-11-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 542 ], and 15-11-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 539 ]. 5. However, thirty-four establishments mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ will not be entitled to above concession. 5. However, thirty-four establishments mentioned in Annexure ‘A’ will not be entitled to above concession. The Monitoring Committee can verify and if they have not ceased commercial activity, the premises shall be sealed and it be ensured that commercial activity is not carried on by them. 6. The Monitoring Committee in Para (3) has recommended particular establishments which, having regard to the larger public interest and the nature of commercial activity carried on, may not be granted relief over and above those mentioned in Annexure ‘A’. In principle, we agree with the recommendation made by the Monitoring Committee in Para (3) of the report. We wish to make it clear that there cannot be any protection in respect of activities covered by Category ‘g’, namely, “Establishments on encroached public land”. Such activity must cease forthwith. In regard to Categories ‘a’ to ‘f’, namely, big furnishing stores; big gold and diamond jewellery showrooms; showrooms for sale of old and new cars; big branded showrooms; big restaurants, and call centres/BPOs, even though may be covered by Notifications dated 7-9-2006 and 15-9-2006 and have filed undertakings and affidavits now that they have stopped commercial activity, the commercial activity can be allowed to continue only after their making necessary provision for parking facility. It would be open to establishments of aforesaid Categories ‘a’ to ‘f’ to satisfy the Monitoring Committee that necessary provision for parking has been made and will be continued for the public and, if satisfied, the Monitoring Committee may permit them commercial activity on case-to-case basis. 7. In Para (4), it has been noticed that, on a surprise check, some buildings were noticed on which certain sofas were put on each floor to give it a residential look even though no one appears to be living in it and the impression was that though building was sanctioned only for residential purpose and no commercial activity was going on but fresh commercial activity may commence. According to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as noted therein, where commercial activity has not yet commenced, building can be booked for violation of building plans. Directions are sought that Municipal Corporation of Delhi be asked to issue public notice that no commercial activity/fresh commercial activity shall be allowed without first getting the building plans approved and on registration and payment of conversion and parking charges. Directions are sought that Municipal Corporation of Delhi be asked to issue public notice that no commercial activity/fresh commercial activity shall be allowed without first getting the building plans approved and on registration and payment of conversion and parking charges. Example of one such stretch of road is mentioned in Para (4) from Mool Chand Hospital crossing to Ashram Chowk. It is to be made clear that no fresh commercial activity in building, sanctioned for residential purpose can be allowed and on violation being noticed, it would be the personal liability of the Deputy Commissioner of the zone concerned to take appropriate action. It will also be the personal liability of the Station House Officer concerned to inform the officers concerned in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. If, despite that, the commercial activity is noticed, these officers shall have to be held personally liable for the consequences. Simply booking a building for violation of building plans on paper has proved to be totally ineffective. There are thousands of buildings which have been booked by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the last number of years but on paper only without any action. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, as suggested in Para (4), shall issue public notice in consultation with the Monitoring Committee. 8. Further recommendation of the Monitoring Committee is in respect of sealing of few schools not covered by Notifications dated 7-9-2006 and 15-9-2006. The recommendation is that these schools which are few in number may be exempted from the sealing operation till the end of the current academic session. In the interest of the students, we accept this suggestion but making it clear that, as stated in Para (9) of the Report, this protection will not be available to those schools which are on the encroached land. 9. The aforesaid protection would also be available to those who had, on their own earlier, stopped misuser in view of the undertakings/affidavits given. 9. The aforesaid protection would also be available to those who had, on their own earlier, stopped misuser in view of the undertakings/affidavits given. In this regard, reference can be made to the order dated 6-11-2006 [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2021) 20 SCC 542 ], which refers to the members of Vikas Marg Vyapar Mandal (Registered) and the statement of the counsel for the said Mandal that the members of the Mandal on their own have already stopped misuser or those who have not, as of now, are ready and willing to stop misuser in view of the undertakings given. 10. Further in Para (8) of the Report, the Monitoring Committee has mentioned that sealing operation is, however, going at slow pace on account of the reluctant attitude of the police and that the Committee will discuss this matter with the Commissioner of Police. We reiterate the directions already made that all concerned, including the Delhi Police, have to extend fullest cooperation for the continued sealing operation in terms of the orders passed, as modified from time-to-time. 11. Those premises which have been sealed and have now the protection of this order, can be de-sealed on the directions of the Monitoring Committee. 12. It has been pointed out that the notifications, above-referred, require the compliance with various matters of planning, such as parking, but despite lapse of all these months, nothing seems to have been done. One of the main reasons for the present problem is total lack of planning and non-implementation of the laws. Under these circumstances, every care is required to be taken while planning for further and laws have to be implemented. Further, ad hocism has to be avoided. The Government of India and the Delhi Government shall within six weeks file a detail affidavit placing on record its roadmap for future planning taking due care of the public interest, such as packing, impact of service like water and electricity and impact on the environment. 13. Copies of this report be given to the learned Solicitor General, learned Amicus Curiae, the counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the counsel for the Delhi Government. 14. IAs Nos. 1995, 1998 and 2000 are, accordingly, disposed of. 15. IAs Nos. 2002 to 2003 regarding schools are taken on board and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.