Ravinder Raj vs Mcd
2010 Latest Caselaw 899 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                    Date of Reserve: 8th January, 2010
                                                    Date of Order: 16th Februrary, 2010

CONT. CAS. (C) No. 400/2005
%                                                                             16.02.2010

       Ravinder Raj                                                   ... Petitioner
                               Through: Petitioner-in-person

               Versus


       Municipal Corporation of Delhi                        ... Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Stdg. Counsel for
                           MCD with Mr. Alok Singh and Mr. Hem Kr. Advocates
                           Ms. Madhu Tewatia and Ms. Sidhi Arora, Advocates for
                           NDMC


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner for disobeying order dated 25th April, 2003 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5851/1998. A perusal of record would show that the petitioner had given certain suggestions to the respondents for adopting a practice of cleaning streets and roads of Delhi during night time so to avoid inhaling of dust pollution by the people in view of practice of the respondent of cleaning streets and roads during morning/peak hours. The concern of the petitioner was that this pollution affects bronchial/breathing of the common man and more especially of the persons suffering from asthmatic allergies and lung ailments. This Court had given directions to the respondents to consider the suggestions made by the petitioner and to adopt the sweeping of the streets during night hours in phased manner as far as practicable.

2. Affidavits filed by the respondents show that the suggestions made by the petitioner were not only considered but were being adopted by the respondents phase-wise and the night sweeping was already in practice in some of the areas and

other areas were being included. The respondent gave a list of 46 areas of Delhi where night sweeping was already being practiced.

3. Looking into the affidavit of the respondent and the assurance given to the Court that night sweeping was gradually being adopted in a phased manner in Delhi, I consider that nothing survives in this Contempt Petition. The Contempt Petition is hereby dismissed.

February 16, 2010                          SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn