S.B. TRIPATHI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1. The petitioner, an advocate, resident of the colony of Dwarka, New Delhi, has filed this writ petition in public interest to restrain the respondent No.1 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) from supplying untreated, raw and hard tubewell water to the residents of the colony of Dwarka, particularly in Sectors 14 -A and 14 -B of the said colony; direction is also sought to restrain the respondent No.1 DDA from mixing untreated, raw and hard tubewell water with the water supplied by the respondent No.4 Delhi Jal Board (DJB); direction is yet further sought against the respondent No.1 DDA to remove the encroachments on public land in the said colony.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.1 DDA and respondent No.4 DJB. None appeared despite service on behalf of the respondent No.5 Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondent No.1 DDA.

(3.) THE respondent No.1 DDA in its counter affidavit has admitted the water demand of Dwarka Sub -City to be approximately 10 MGD and the supply by DJB of only about 3.5 MGD. It is however pleaded that the parameters of hardness are kept within the permissible limits as prescribed in BIS -10500 and the water supplied is fit for human consumption. The allegations of encroachment on public land are denied. The respondent No.1 DDA has further informed that it has allotted and handed over land in the colony of Dwarka, as demanded, to respondent No.4 DJB for construction of Water Treatment Plant. Along with the affidavit, test reports to show water supplied being potable are filed. With respect to the allegations in the writ petition of encroachment, the respondent No.1 DDA has stated that in response to its complaints to the police, the police has informed that the weekly market complained of has been approved by the Lieutenant Governor and the fee in accordance with the Rules is being collected by the respondent MCD and the respondent No.1 DDA has no role in the same. It is further pleaded that it is the MCD which is responsible for sweeping the roads.