Ravinder Raj v. M.C.D

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

CCP No. 400/2005

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

CCP No. 400/2005 * 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?