SUBHASH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to stop the spreading/emitting of pollution and also directing respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 to take appropriate and effective steps to curb/check the pollution and seal the polluting unit to accordance with law. It is further prayed that respondent No.4's activity of repairing, manufacturing of generator/industrial activities in a residential area be stopped.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for being permitted to file rejoinder. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have taken the inspection report handed over by respondent no.1 on record. I see no need for rejoinder.

(3.) Mr.Ravinder Chadha counsel for respondent No.1. submits that an inspection has been carried out by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and they have found that the shop in question is a very small shop having an area of 8 sq. yds. It is further stated that on inspection only a portable generator set of one KW was found. Further, there was no manufacturing activity going on and it was only a small repair shop. Learned counsel submits that there is no pollution being carried out or caused by respondent No.4's activities. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 Mr.Ajay Gupta has filed an affidavit where it is stated that the petitioner has been set up by the previous employer of respondent No.4 out of vengance and sheer professional jealousy. It is stated that respondent No.1 was employed with one Mr.Tarun Sikri. We submits that this is a petition actuated by malafides and professional jealousy of his former employer and the petitioner has been used for the said purpose. From the facts it is revealed that the petitioner is a resident of Gandhi Nagar and the shop in question is situated at a distance of more 1 kms away. It is apparent that the petitioner himself cannot have any personal grievance in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify that the petitioner is a dealer in electric goods and , therefore, when he passes in front of the respondent No.4's shop he would be affected by the pollution. Petitioner has no locus. This is not a public interest litigation.