Sanjeev Agrawal And Ors. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
2001 Latest Caselaw 1815 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin. J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for MCD in support of their respective submissions. I have perused the original record of MCD.

2. Petitioners, the residents of DDA flats at Lado Sari, have filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent MCD not to construct the Dhalao Kuradan (Dustbin) in front of DDA flats, Lado Sarai. It is further prayed that the same should be constructed either in the village or the Dhalao be permitted to continue at the existing site.

3. Pleadings are complete. The selection of Dhalao site is a perennial problem. Wherever a Dhalao is located, either the residents or the commercial establishments, which are proximate to the Dhalao, stand up in protest against the said location. MCD, in such matters, has a difficult choice of reconciling the conflicting interests. It is also essential that Dhalaos are located at a spot, which is not at a great distance from the individual places of removal of garbage.

4. Coming to the facts of the instant case, petitioners submit that the Dhalao had been located at point A as per the layout plan (page 10 of the paper book). It is stated that a commercial building had come up adjacent to the said Dhalao. MCD, as per the petitioners, came under pressure from the commercial establishment and decided to shift the Dhalao from the existing site at point 'A'. It is claimed that they first shifted the Dhalao to a site at point 'C', which was opposite the DDA nursery where construction was commenced but was abandoned and reshifted to point 'D', opposite the Golf Course at point. Again on protest shifted to point 'B' opposite to the DDA flats.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by DDA where shifting, as alleged by the petitioners, is denied. It is stated that the reason for shifting the Dhalao from point 'A' was existence of a pump house and the possible fear of water contamination. Secondly, it is submitted that there was problem of the loader trucks in approaching the site in question next to the pump house and hence it was decided to shift. Even if, there is some merit in the petitioners' contention that shifting of the Dhalao was at the behest of the commercial establishment, in my view, the same need not necessarily result in condemning the decision to shift, if there are other good reasons to shift the Dhalao from the pump house, as explained by MCD, namely, the existence of a pump house and the problem of difficult access to the loaders trucks on account of lack of space to approach the Dhalao.

6. Be that as it may, the relocation of the site, as per Mr. Mukherjee, is at between the points 'D' and 'B' i.e. opposite the DVB station and not at point 'B', as contended by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that they would have endeavored to shift the Dhalao site a little further away from the existing site, which is between points B & D but for the existence of the four pillars and the transformer, which has underground cables, it was not possible to further shift the Dhalao away from the DDA flats. From perusal of the site plan, I find that the existing site of the Dhalao is almost at the same distance as it was earlier from the DDA flats, rather it is on the opposite side of the road. The petitioners, in these circumstances, cannot have any legitimate grievance, which is enforceable at law in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

7. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.