JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.- We, the two members of a Bench, have not been able to agree on the final conclusion in these writ petitions. It is for this reason I have to pen down my view that is different from the one taken by my esteemed Sister Rekha Sharma, J. In her opinion, she has mentioned the factual matrix and also stated the background which led to the sealing of various premises belonging to the petitioners in these writ petitions. I am, therefore, spared with the botheration of stating these facts all over again as it would be an unnecessary repetitive exercise. However, necessary facts for chartering different course of action would need a mention wherever warranted. 2. In order to maintain the continuity, I may only recapitulate the problem in a nutshell: The Court Commissioner of Karol Bagh Zone, on the basis of his visit to the Rama Road area in West Delhi on 8.7.2006, noticed on-going construction at Plot No. 71, Rama Road. His further probe into the matter revealed that Plot Nos. 70 and 71, though originally measured about 10.76 acres each, had exchanged hands from one owner to another and here was sub-division of these plots. It was further revealed that these sub-divided plots, in fragmented form, were sold to different buyers who had raised huge constructions thereon without sanction of plans. He submitted his report dated 26.7.2006 on the basis of this inspection. This led to further revelation that there were many other industrial plots in the said area which were sub-divided in a similar manner. Orders dated 31.7.2006 were passed by this Court directing the Commissioner, MCD to enquire into the matter and also into the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner, Junior Engineer and other officers of the Zone. The MCD initiated demolition action on Plot Nos. 71/6 and 71/7. Writ Petition No. 13895-918/2006 titled Anil Dewan and Ors. v. MCD, etc. was filed with a prayer that MCD be restrained from carrying out these demolitions. The MCD took further action by sealing some properties which belong to the petitioners in the instant cases. That is how these petitions are filed with a prayer that their premises be de-sealed. The issue, therefore, before us, today, is as to whether direction is to be issued to the MCD to de-seal the premises of the petitioners. 3. The MCD took further action by sealing some properties which belong to the petitioners in the instant cases. That is how these petitions are filed with a prayer that their premises be de-sealed. The issue, therefore, before us, today, is as to whether direction is to be issued to the MCD to de-seal the premises of the petitioners. 3. It may be mentioned at the outset that there is no dispute that Rama Road in West Delhi was conceived as an Industrial Area for extensive industries with large industrial plots. Most of these plots, as they were originally developed by the Delhi Improvement Trust and sold on leasehold basis, measure in several acres each. It is also not in dispute that these plots are sub-divided into several small plots. As pointed out in the order of Rekha Sharma, J., 7 plots falling in Karol Bagh Zone, which originally measured between 4087-50221 sq. mts., after the sub-division, today number 305 plots. It may also be pointed out that on the sub-divided plots constructions are raised and most of these constructions are without getting any plans sanctioned from the appropriate authority. 4. When it is observed that there is a sub-division of the plots in violation of the terms of lease and illegal constructions raised thereon, in such a situation, normal reaction would be not to interfere with the sealing of these properties. That could have been my opinion as well. However, having regard to certain very material and important events happening in the interregnum and in view of the policy formulated by the Central Government, reflecting these ground realities, in the form of provision contained in the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021 (for short, MPD 2021 I), my conclusion/ opinion stands otherwise. 5. Over a period of time, there had been a gradual shift of large scale industries from these areas. Final blows were inflicted by the Supreme Court to check environmental pollution they were causing. It is a matter of common knowledge that the problem of hazardous industries running in Delhi came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, III (1996) CL T 93 (SC)= (1996) 4 SCC 750 . Series of orders and directions came to be passed by the Apex Court in the said case from time-to-time. Series of orders and directions came to be passed by the Apex Court in the said case from time-to-time. To summarise the effect of these orders in brief, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that since as per the Master Plan, 2000, those hazardous industries falling in Category H were not permitted in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short, NCTD), such industries could not operate in this vicinity. Directions were, thus, given to shut down all such industries. The Supreme Court had also passed orders for rehabilitating these industries in Bawana. Many such industries on Rama Road faced similar closure. 6. As mentioned above, Rama Road was conceived as an Industrial Area for extensive industries. That was the raison detre for allotting large industrial plots since heavy industries needed plots of large size. However, with the shifting of large scale industries and closure of industrial activities, necessity of big size plots also ceased, as small scale industries needed small size plots. In fact, industrial activity had almost vanished and, therefore, the plots were used for other kinds of commercial activities. As, for such commercial activities, there was no requirement of the plots of massive size, over a period of time the plots were sub-divided for carrying out other commercial activities. This had started happening even before the orders of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra). No doubt, for creating the sub-division, owners of the plots were required to obtain permission from the lessor in terms of the lease deed. We find from the record that some plot holders took permission before creating such subdivisions, but most of the plot holders did not care to take requisite permission from the lessors. 7. The constructions which were carried out on these plots originally, were in accordance with the sanctioned plans. However, after the subdivisions on fragmented plots, the constructions raised were without getting the plans sanctioned. The reason is obvious; with the sub-divided plots, MCD would not have sanctioned the plans. Notwithstanding most of these units have been operating for decades. In many units, the construction is also very old, though many occupiers have been carrying out the construction even in recent times, as was found in the case of plot No. 71. 8. The reason is obvious; with the sub-divided plots, MCD would not have sanctioned the plans. Notwithstanding most of these units have been operating for decades. In many units, the construction is also very old, though many occupiers have been carrying out the construction even in recent times, as was found in the case of plot No. 71. 8. The Legislature in the first instance, taking cognizance of the ground realities as pointed out above (and there may be some other circumstances as well), enacted Delhi Lands (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006). It came into force with effect from 19.5.2006. Section 3 of the Act of 2006 states that the Central Government would take all possible measures to finalize norms, policy guidelines and feasible strategies to deal with the problem of unauthorised development with regard to the categories stipulated in the said section. In the meantime, as per Sub-section (3) of Sectioi13, no punitive action was to be taken during the said period of one year. The protection was, however, given in respect of those unauthorised constructions which had come up before 1.1.2006 inasmuch as Section 4(a) of that Act in no uncertain terms stipulates that no relief under Section 3 was available to those unauthorised constructions which were started or continued on or after 1.1.2006. 9. Within one year of tpe aforesaid enactment, i.e. on 7.2.2007, MPD 2021 was notified. Though the Central Government did not finalise norms, policy guidelines or feasible strategies to deal with the problems of unauthorised development, as mandated by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 2006, a special provision in the form of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021 was inserted dealing with these very industrialized areas. As the entire case rests on the interpretation of this clause and the consequential orders that need to be passed on that basis, it is necessary to reproduce the entire clause of MPD 2021, which is to the following effect: "7.6.1 Existing Planned Industrial Areas These industrialized areas were developed in the 70s and over the years, have deteriorated considerably in terms of the physical infrastructure and, in some cases deficiencies on this score have persisted in an overall sense. Besides, there have been changes in the nature of activities in some of the areas and there have also been demands for using part of the plots for activities, which could be classified as commercial. There may also be a need to see whether further densification is possible in terms of creating smaller plots by sub-divisions to accommodate a large number of industries/units. Guidelines for re-development of existing industrial areas shall be framed within 2 years by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and the local body. Till such time, the existing sub-divisions may continue. There is, therefore, a need for modernization and upgradation of the existing industrial areas with due regard to environmental considerations. Since most of the industrial areas are located along the Mass Public Transport Corridors, there is also a need for optimizing the use around these areas through the process of re-development. This process of upgradation and re-development will need to be carried out in a planned manner, and in a public-private partnership framework, in which the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterment and subsequent maintenance through suitable Operation and Maintenance arrangements." 10. It is manifest from the reading of the aforesaid provision that the Central Government was conscious of the following ground realities in respect of these industrialised areas, like Rama Road, etc.- (a) such industrialised areas were developed in 1970s and over the years had deteriorated considerably in terms of physical infrastructure; (b) there have been changes in the nature of activities in some of the areas (some of these are pointed out above); (c) there have been demands for using part of the plots, which could be classified as commercial; and (d) it was recognized that there is a need for modernisation and upgradation of existing industrial areas with due regard to environmental considerations. There was also a need for optimising the use around these areas through the process of re-development. In the process, it was also necessary to see whether further densification is possible in terms of creating smaller plots by sub-division to accommodate a large number of industries/units. The policy makers, thus, realized that there was a necessity to carry out the process of upgradation and re-development of these industrial plots in a planned manner and in a public/private partnership framework. The purpose is to ensure that the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterment and subsequent maintenance through suitable operations and maintenance arrangements. The policy makers, thus, realized that there was a necessity to carry out the process of upgradation and re-development of these industrial plots in a planned manner and in a public/private partnership framework. The purpose is to ensure that the entrepreneurs contribute to the betterment and subsequent maintenance through suitable operations and maintenance arrangements. Having regard to the necessity of preparing a framework for upgradation and re-development of these plots keeping in view the objectives delineated above, two measures are mandated in para 7.6.1- (i) DDA is assigned the task of preparing guidelines for redevelopment of existing industrial areas within a period of two years in consultation with the Government of NCTD and the local body, namely MCD; and (ii) till such time these guidelines are framed by the DDA, the existing sub-divisions are allowed to continue. 11. The moot question is: What does the expression till such time the existing sub-divisions may continue convey With what intent and purpose this provision is introduced The petitioners contend that once the subdivisions are allowed to continue, it would mean that the petitioners are permitted to operate their units and, therefore, the premises need to be desealed. MCD has supported this, taking similar posture, as discussed in detail hereinafter. On the other hand, the learned Court Commissioner as well as learned counsel for the DDA went to the extent of arguing that this provision does not protect even the sub-divisions and wherever such a protection is granted in the MPD 2021, specific language in that behalf is used. 12. In the separate opinion of Rekha Sharma, J., though accepting that the phrase means that the sub-divisions are allowed to continue, it is opined that the petitioners would not be entitled to the de-sealing of their units as the constructions raised thereon are unauthorized and illegal and no such constructions are allowed to continue inasmuch as the clause does not specifically include the constructions raised thereon. It is here that I respectfully disagree and in the following paragraphs I will state my reasons for doing so. 13. I may clarify at the beginning itself that by no means it is suggested that the sub-division of plots which originally took place and the manner in which it was done was not in violation of the terms of the lease deeds. It is also not suggested that with the aforesaid provision, these subdivisions are legalised. 13. I may clarify at the beginning itself that by no means it is suggested that the sub-division of plots which originally took place and the manner in which it was done was not in violation of the terms of the lease deeds. It is also not suggested that with the aforesaid provision, these subdivisions are legalised. What is emphasised is that the Government ,authorities have taken cognizance of the problem and have felt the need to upgrade and re-develop these industrial areas. As and when such guidelines for re-development of existing industrial areas are formulated by the policy makers, obviously the occupiers of these sub-divided plots will have to conform to those provisions. Since these industries/commercial establishments are operating for number of years, the occupiers are given a respite for a period of two years. The clear intention is to give them reprieve and put moratorium against any coercive action. It is manifested by allowing them to continue. It is possible that once these guidelines are formulated, many existing units would be found already conforming to those guidelines or may have to make small changes/deviations/improvements for bringing them in conformity with the guidelines. On the other hand, it is also possible that many such existing units operating from these sub-divided plots may have to face closure. It is only after the framing of the guidelines, that the fate of these units would be determined, depending upon the nature of the guidelines so framed. We have also to keep in, mind the background in which such a provision is made in the MPD 2021. On an earlier occasion, protection was given vide Section 3 of the Act of 2006. Now, the MPD 2021 provides protection to the establishments/ industries existing on these sub-divisions by allowing them to continue till such time DDA formulates the guidelines for re-development of existing industrial areas, which task DDA is to accomplish within tw10 years from 7.2.2007, i.e. by 7.2.2009. 14. It is, thus, clear that in view of this provision, notwithstanding sub-division of these large scale plots without the approval1of the lessor, , they are allowed to continue. In such a circumstance, can it be said that though sub-divisions are allowed to continue, still these petitioners would not be given any relief because the construction carried out on these subdivided plots is not after obtaining any sanction. In such a circumstance, can it be said that though sub-divisions are allowed to continue, still these petitioners would not be given any relief because the construction carried out on these subdivided plots is not after obtaining any sanction. To my mind, the intention behind the expression the existing sub-divisions may continue would mean that they are allowed to operate till the guidelines for re-development are framed by the DDA, for which two years time is granted to it. Therefore, for a period of two years or at least till such time the guidelines are framed, protection is accorded. This permission cannot be negatived on the ground that construction carried out on these plots is allegedly illegal. If such an approach is taken, I am afraid, that would (II mount to negating the very purpose with which such a clause is specifically inserted in the MPD 2021. There can be a legitimate presumption that when the policy makers introduced the aforesaid provision in the MPD 2021, they very well knew the ground realities including the kind of constructions which were already existing. In the present case, one does not: even make such presumption, as it can be clearly inferred from the background facts that the Central Government as well as other statutory authorities had definite knowledge about these constructions. Still the provision is made allowing these sub-divisions to continue and it is to be given its fullest meaning with the purpose with which the provision is introduced. Purposive Interpretation is the technique which has acquired certainty as a principle of interpretation. This trend is visible in the judgments of the Supreme Court, some of which are discussed at this juncture. 15. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and Anr., IX (1999) SLT 351= AIR 2000 SC 114 , Rule 7 of Rules for Admission to Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College defining local students was in issue, and it was observed as under: "Before proceeding to interpret Rule 7 in the manner which we think is the correct interpretation, we have to bear in mind that it is not the jurisdiction of the Court to enter into the arena of the legislative prerogative of enacting laws. However, keeping in mind the fact that the Rule in question is only a subordinate legislation and by declaring the Rule ultra vires, as has been done by the High Court, we would be only causing considerable damage to the cause for which the Municipality had enacted this Rule. We, therefore, think it appropriate to rely upon the famous and oft-quoted principle relied by Lord Denning in the case of Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1994) 2 All ER 155 wherein he held- When a defect appears a Judge cannot simply fold his hand and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament and then he must supplement the written words so as to give force and life to the intention of the Legislature. A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act, had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases. This statement of law made by Lord• Denning has been consistently followed by this Court starting in the case of M. Pentaih and Ors. v. Muddala Veeramallappa and Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1107 and followed as recently as in the case of S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2184 ." 16. The three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sanjay Dhar v. J and K Public Service Commission and Anr., VII (2000) SLT 338= AIR 2000 SC 3238 , observed that Rule 9 of the J&K Service (Judicial) Recruitment Rules, 1967 must receive a purposive interpretation. Purposive interpretation enable ascertaining the purpose of enactment, the object sought to be achieved and the mischief sought to be taken care of or prevented. 17. In Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors., V (2006) SLT 163=III (2006) CLT 86 (SC)= AIR 2006 SC 1489 , the Honble Supreme Court laid down the dicta in respect of principles of interpretation, and the same reads as under: "71. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have relied on several principles of interpretation of statute. 72. Before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have relied on several principles of interpretation of statute. 72. The golden rule of interpretation is that unless literal meaning given to a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the principles of literal interpretation should be adhered to [see Compak (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 8 SCC 300 , Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 4 SCC 534 , Dayal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 593 and Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, India, (2004) 11 SCC 641 ]. 74. We have also been asked by the learned Counsel for the parties to interpret the impugned legislation in the light of constitutional scheme and in particular Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the MRTP Act, the doctrine of sustainable development and various other principles. In the aforementioned situation, it is not possible for us to take recourse to the golden rule. 75. As would appear from the discussions made hereinafter, we are, however, of the opinion that for correct interpretation of DCR 58, the principles of purposive interpretation should be applied. 76. In Francis Bennions Statutory Interpretation, purposive construction has been described in the following manner- A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by- (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code called a purposive-and-literal construction), or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive-and-strained construction). 77. In K.L. Gupta and Ors. v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors., 1968 (1) SCR 274 , it was stated- Before examining the contentions on the points of law raised in this case, it is necessary to appreciate what the Act sought to achieve and why it was brought on the statute book. In order to do this, it is necessary to take stock of the position at the time of its enactment so that attention may be focussed on the situation calling for a remedy and how the legislature sought to tackle it...., 78. However, the pith of this statement has now found form in the doctrine of purposive construction, as accepted by this Court in several cases. 79. However, the pith of this statement has now found form in the doctrine of purposive construction, as accepted by this Court in several cases. 79. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram LAI and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 638 , while interpreting the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the rule of purposive construction was followed. 80. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424 this Court stated: ...If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act... 81. In The Interpretation and Application of Statutes, Reed Dickerson, at p.135 discussed the subject while dealing with the importance of context of the statute in the following terms- ... The essence of the language is to reflect, express, and perhaps even affect the conceptual matrix of established ideas and values that identifies the culture to which it belongs. For this reason, language has been called conceptual• map of human experience. 82. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, (1990) 3 SCC 682 , this Court referred to the following passage from Hans Kelsens Pure Theory Law of Law- The legal act applying a legal norm may be performed in such a way that it conforms (a) with the one or the other of the different meanings of the legal norm, (b) with the will of the norm-creating authority that is to be determined somehow, (c) with the expression which the norm-creating authority has chosen, (d) with the one or the other of the contradictory norms, or (e) the concrete case to which the two contradictory norms refer Page 1235 may be decided under the assumption that the two contradictory norms annul each other. In all these cases, the law to be applied constitutes only a frame within which several applications are possible, whereby every act is legal that stays within the frame. In all these cases, the law to be applied constitutes only a frame within which several applications are possible, whereby every act is legal that stays within the frame. [See also High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, (2003) 4 sec 712; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 7 see 589 and Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 ] 92. It is also a well settled principle of law that common sense construction rule should be taken recourse to in certain cases as has been adumbrated in Halsburys Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume 44(1) (Reissue). We would refer to the said principle in some details later." 18. After all, action against such illegal constructions was kept in , abeyance by legislative measure contained in Section 3 of the Act of 2006. If at that time this Court took the view that no action need be taken for R period of one year during which the said Act WAS in operation, it is beyond comprehension as to why the same approach cannot be adopted while construing provision of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. 19. It is also pointed out by some of these petitioners that even the construction was raised as far back as in 1970s/ 1980s after getting the plans sanctioned. We may quote the example of WP (C) No. 319312007. This was a case which was separately argued by Counsel for the parties. As per the averments made in the petition, one Shri P.L. Mehta was given leasehold rights in a plot of land admeasuring 1.22 acres bearing No. 38 in the Industrial Area Scheme, Rama Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi on 4.8.1950. The petitioners are successors-in-interest of the original allottee, being his children. There was specific stipulation in the agreement entered into between late Shri P.L. Mehta and Delhi Improvement Trust that lessee would not sub-divide the said land without the previous sanction, in writing, of the Delhi Improvement Trust. The Delhi Improvement Trust was succeeded by the Delhi Development Authority. On 19.7.1969, DDA executed the sale deed in favour of late Shri P.L. Mehta on free-hold basis. The Delhi Improvement Trust was succeeded by the Delhi Development Authority. On 19.7.1969, DDA executed the sale deed in favour of late Shri P.L. Mehta on free-hold basis. In this sale deed, there was no stipulation prohibiting the petitioner therein from either sub-dividing, selling or alienating any part or portion of the said plot of land either with or without the permission of the DDA. The MCD granted building permits for construction of an industrial building to the land owner on 30.6.1970. The building was accordingly constructed. It is not in dispute that as on that date there was no unauthorized construction ever reported in respect of this property. Late Shri P.L. Mehta decided to sell half portion of the said constructed property for his bona fide needs and requirements. He approached the DDA and was given No Objection on 4.10.1977. We may mention that this No Objection is enclosed along with the petition and though initially the DDA took the plea that such No Objection is not on records, the case was argued conceding that such a No Objection was given. Shri P.L. Mehta took similar permission from the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 since the DDA while granting this permission had stated that the No Objection was subject to seeking permission from those authorities. After obtaining permission from the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on 13.10.1977, half portion of the property was sold to M/s. Tek Chand and Sons. Registered sale deed dated 15.3.1978 was executed in this behalf. Necessary ratifications were also carried out in the records of the Property Tax department of the MCD. Remaining half portion admeasuring about 3500 sq. yds. is in the ownership of the petitioners. This half portion of the petitioners is sealed. Sealing took place on 18.4.2007 without any notice to the petitioners on the ground that the original plot of land had been illegally sub-divided. On 19.4.2007, the petitioners approached DDA and MCD and informed about the aforesaid facts, including that there was specific permission for sub-division. However, as no action was taken to de-seal the premises, these petitioners filed WP (C)No. 3193/2007. 20. This case is, thus, an example where even the permission for subdivision is duly taken. However, the argument of unauthorized construction was raised by the DDA. However, as no action was taken to de-seal the premises, these petitioners filed WP (C)No. 3193/2007. 20. This case is, thus, an example where even the permission for subdivision is duly taken. However, the argument of unauthorized construction was raised by the DDA. The Court Commissioner was asked to inspect the premises and submit his report. Report dated 14.9.2007 is submitted by him. As per this report, no doubt, some of the construction is beyond the sanctioned plan. It may be mentioned that the premises are used as motor garage and there is extra coverage in the form of sheds and, thus, temporary structure to this extent is constructed. Admittedly, this extra coverage is not the ground for sealing of the premises. Even otherwise, affidavit is filed by the petitioners that they would remove the extra coverage. Still, in a case like this, if de-sealing is not ordered, it would be unjust, to these petitioners. This is the ground reality in this case, de hars the provisions like Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. This case also demonstrates that many times general orders may lead to injustice in individual cases and when these persons approach the Court and point out that the reason which prompted the Court to seal! demolish the properties is not attracted in their cases, they are to be given the relief. 21. I may also mention that one of the submissions of these petitioners was that the MCD had taken selective action in sealing the premises of these petitioners though there were number of others who were similarly situated on the Rama Road itself, but no action was taken by the MCD in respect of those units. It is explained that pursuant to orders dated 15.2.2007 passed by this Court taking note of Clause 7.6.1 and permitting these unit holders to move applications to the MCD in the requisite proforma, the MCD received applications from various persons. These were processed and were submitted to the Standing Committee of the MCD as per Sections 312 and 313 of the DMC Act. However, as on that date the Standing Committee of the Corporation was functus officio because of the completion of the term of the Corporation and, therefore, applications could be considered only after the reconstitution of the Standing Committee. The MCD thereafter worked out the modalities for carrying out scaling vis-a-vis applicability of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. However, as on that date the Standing Committee of the Corporation was functus officio because of the completion of the term of the Corporation and, therefore, applications could be considered only after the reconstitution of the Standing Committee. The MCD thereafter worked out the modalities for carrying out scaling vis-a-vis applicability of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. and Court orders. The administrative justification/reason of the basis of choosing/selecting a criteria/guidelines WRS adopted by the MCD to carry out sealing in transparent and fair manner so that the petitioners and other unit holders who had applied for regularization, till a decision could be made by the Standing Committee, should not be in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis those who had not applied. The guidelines are as under: Those petitioners who have approached the MCD in pursuance of the aforesaid order are exempted from sealing till their applications are disposed of by the MCD in terms of the aforesaid order. Those persons who are not the petitioners in the aforesaid orders but they have approached the MCD for the similar action or similarly placed and as such are entitled to be exempted from sealing in parity with the petitioners. Those persons who have neither been petitioners nor approached the MCD. These owners are not exempted from sealing. 22. According to the MCD, the sealing operation was carried out keeping in view the aforesaid categorisation which was done in good faith. Thereafter, on reconstitution of the Standing Committee, the Chairman vide his order dated 22.5.2007 rejected the applications for approval/requisition, which was ratified by the Standing Committee vide Resolution No. 118 dated 6.6.2007. The applications were rejected on the ground that as per MPD 2021, these were to be considered under the policy to be formulated by the DDA within two years. The MCD, however, has taken the stand that in view of Clause 7.6.1, which recognises the problems and is binding on the MCD, till the time the guidelines are framed, it is not possible to consider individual cases and, therefore, mandate of Clause 7.6.1, in the meantime, is to be respected which allows the existing subdivisions to continue. The MCDs perception about the said clause is as under: "12. ...This mandate, being the part of the MPD 2021, has also to be appreciated and respected. The MCDs perception about the said clause is as under: "12. ...This mandate, being the part of the MPD 2021, has also to be appreciated and respected. It is the understanding of MCD that so long as this clause exists, due consideration has got to be given to it, because being a part of the Master Plan, MCD is equally obliged to follow it. To add further, to the best information of MCD, there is no specific stay by any Honble Court on the operation of Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. 13. In the light of this, it is the understanding of MCD that if the existing sub-division to continue, then sealing cannot be resorted to." 23. The MCD has filed further affidavit dated 28.9.2007 in which the following stand is taken by it insofar as provisions of para 7.6.1 of MPD 2021 are concerned: "10. That the stand of the MCD, as regards 7.6.1 of MPD 2021, the same has already been put on record by way of affidavit dated 28.5.2007 in which it was pointed out that looking to the ground realities and the provisions of MPD 2021, the LOSC observed that the sub-divisions can now be considered only as per the provisions of Master Plan 2021 notified by the Government of India on 7.2.2007 and since the provisions of MPD 2021 referred to further densification of the plots by sub-divisions to accommodate the larger number of industries, subject to the guidelines for redevelopment which shall be framed within two years of the notification of the Master Plan by DDA in consultation with GNCTD and local body and since the ear Her parameters are no longer relevant in the changed scenario and extensive industries are not permitted in the city of National Capital Territory of Delhi, it has been decided that the applications of the petitioners cannot be considered on the same parameters which were applicable in MPD 1962 besides for the re-development of the existing planned industrial areas, guidelines for the re-development have to be framed by DDA within two years and till such time existing subdivisions may be allowed to continue. The Standing Committee has approved the recommendations whereby applications made for approval of subdivisions at Najafgarh Road Industrial Area have been rejected in view of the policy which is yet to be formulated by DDA. The Standing Committee has approved the recommendations whereby applications made for approval of subdivisions at Najafgarh Road Industrial Area have been rejected in view of the policy which is yet to be formulated by DDA. As per MPD, 2021 these are to be considered under the policy to be formulated by DDA within two years of the notification of Master Plan 2021. Till such policy is formwated the status quo may continue keeping in view the provisions of para 7.6.1 of MPD 2021. In view of this, the sealed properties may kindly be allowed to be de-sealed to maintain parity till a policy / guidelines is framed by the DDA as envisaged in 7.6.1 and 7.8 of MPD 2021." 24. Learned Counsel for the MCD had made a categorical averment that insofar as MCD is concerned, in view of the aforesaid position, it had no objection if the premises are de-sealed and, in fact, wanted to de-seal the premises and was awaiting the orders of the Court. It may be noted that learned Counsel for the DDA had gone to the extent of arguing that Clause 7.6.1 of MPD 2021 does not permit sub-divisions, which interpretation is not accepted by Rekha Sharma, J. as well in her separate opinion. However, in spite of repeated demands of Counsel for the petitioners that DDA should also give its official stand on Clause 7.6.1 as done by the MCD, nothing is filed and learned Counsel for the DDA scuttled this on the premise that since it was merely an interpretation of Clause 7.6.1, he could make the submissions on this aspect without filing any reply of the DCA. 25. 1 am thus, of the opinion that once it is accepted that in the Master Plan, as per Clause 7.6.1, the sub-divisions are allowed to continue till the time a policy/guidelines is framed by the DDA, for which it is granted two years, And on this aspect both the Members of the Bench are unanimous, sealing should not continue in view of my detailed discussion hereinabove. I may note that MPD 2021 has already been challenged before the Honble Supreme Court. Even when the said petition is entertained, the Apex Court I has refused to grant stay of the operation of this MPD. Not only this, orders are passed not to take any action in respect of those properties which conform to MPD 2021. I may note that MPD 2021 has already been challenged before the Honble Supreme Court. Even when the said petition is entertained, the Apex Court I has refused to grant stay of the operation of this MPD. Not only this, orders are passed not to take any action in respect of those properties which conform to MPD 2021. 26. Therefore, the premises belonging to the petitioners can be ordered to be de-sealed by putting some fetters on these petitioners. In the circumstances, I am of the view that these petitions warrant to be allowed and it is directed that the premises of the petitioners be de-sealed subject to the following: (a) the petitioners or occupiers thereof would not carry out further constructions or alterations on these premises; (b) they would not create third party rights or transfer these plots to any other person in the meantime and would not change the present activity; (c) the petitioners shall abide by and conform to the policy/ guidelines that would be framed by the DDA; (d) the petitioners shall abide by the orders that would ultimately be passed by the Supreme Court while deciding the issue relating to MPD 2021;. (e) any constructions which were carried out after 1.1.2006 shall be demolished, as per the directions given earlier; and (f) the petitioners shall file affidavits of undertaking in this behalf within one week and on filing these affidavits, the premises shall be de-sealed by the MCD forthwith. 27. It would, however, be open to the MCD as well as the Court Commissioner to inspect these premises at any time in order to find as to whether there is any violation of the aforesaid undertakings. If it is found that any of the petitioners has violated any of the terms of the undertakings, not only the premises shall be sealed again, such petitioner(s) shall be liable for contempt as well. 28. These petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petitions allowed.