Defence Colony Flyover Welfare ... vs Ashok Nigam & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1463 Del

                    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                      Date of Reserve: 11th March, 2010
                                                         Date of Order: 16th March, 2010

CONT. CAS. (C) No. 166/2008
%                                                                             16.03.2010

          Defence Colony Flyover Welfare Association            ... Petitioner
                             Through: Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Advocate

                  Versus


          Ashok Nigam & Anr.                                        ... Respondents
                                 Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with
                                 Mr. Prashant Mehra, Advocate for DDA

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 petition has been preferred alleging non-implementation of the

orders dated 2nd August, 2006 and 4th September, 2006 passed by this Court. The

operative parts of the orders passed by this Court on these two dates read as under:

2.8.2006

Learned Counsel for the respondent DDA states that a decision would be taken on this petition as to the possibility of locating the premises allotted to FRI COS shortly. Let a decision be taken within two weeks.

4.9.2006

In this view of the matter the DDA and respondent no.2 and 3 are directed to inspect the premises and take suitable action, in view of the determination arrived at by them, in accordance with law. The process shall be completed at the earliest and in any case not later than within four months from today.

2. It is submitted by respondent that after passing of this order a local

commissioner was appointed who visited the site and gave a report and found that

clinic and surroundings thereof were hygienic and clean and this hygiene and

cleanliness was also being maintained inside the clinic. No doubt he had observed

that there was bad smell due to which it was impossible for even him to stand near

the clinic.

3. The premises in question was allotted to the organization

FRIENDICOES SECCA by MCD for the purpose for which it was being used. The

NGO is functioning there for the last 20 years. The activity being carried by the NGO

was legal and the activity was such that the bad smell inside or around the clinic

cannot be stopped since the NGO was indulging in service of injured stray animals,

who are operated and treated in the clinic. Vide its orders, the Court had not given

any direction for cancellation of lease of the NGO nor given directions for shifting of

the NGO to any other place. There seems to be no violation of the order of the

Court. This petition is therefore not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.

March 16, 2010                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn