JUDGMENT : MANMOHAN, J. 1. On the oral prayer of Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate appearing for Association of Vishwas Nagar Small Scale Mfg. & Traders (Regd.), it is impleaded as one of respondents in the present case. Let amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week. 2. It is pertinent to mention that present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30th September, 2015 passed by the Minister of Power, PWD, Govt. of NCT of Delhi wherein re-survey of industrial clusters, including, Vishwas Nagar had been directed to be completed within two months. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner states that despite the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 588 which directed that all industrial units in the residential area to be closed down, no effective action has been taken despite lapse of twelve years. 4. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, states that residents of Vishwas Nagar have not been afforded any relief owing to dialectic attitude of respondent-authority in closing down illegal industries. He points out that in four surveys already carried out, including the last one having been carried out in 2014 under Court’s supervision jointly by various authorities, namely, Delhi Pollution Control Board (DPCB), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Delhi Fire Services (DFS), DSIIDC, DSIIDC, Commissioner of Industries, MCD, Delhi Police, DC/SDM, industrial concentration in Vishwas Nagar has been found to be less than 70%. Consequently, he states that no fresh survey should have been directed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner emphasises that in the last survey conducted in 2014, as many as 1383 polluting and 179 hazardous units were found to be operating in Vishwas Nagar. He further states that, though 795 alternative plots have already been allotted to the industrial units in Vishwas Nagar, yet very few have shifted. He states that the impugned decision to resurvey smacks of mala-fides and has been taken under influence of the industries. According to him, repeated surveys must be stopped and action must be taken by the authorities in pursuance to the surveys already conducted. 6. He states that the impugned decision to resurvey smacks of mala-fides and has been taken under influence of the industries. According to him, repeated surveys must be stopped and action must be taken by the authorities in pursuance to the surveys already conducted. 6. This Court is prima facie of the view that while on the one hand, respondents are using the court process to curb the menace of pollution by banning diesel taxis and by introducing Odd and Even programme, yet on the other hand the underlying cause of pollution, namely, operation of hazardous and polluting industries has not been addressed. 7. Issue notice. 8. Notice is accepted on behalf of the respondents. Counter-affidavits be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder-affidavits, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. 9. List on 4th May, 2016. 10. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the decision dated 30th September, 2015 and if a survey has already been carried out in pursuance thereto, the same shall not be given effect to.