Smt. Veena Vaid v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Judgment dated 20.12.2012 SMT. VBT^NA VAID ■; Petitioner iBrough; Ms.Seema Kashyap, Advocate ■ G • J versus W

MIJNICIPM. COICPORATION OF DHLTII Respondent Through: Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advocate •s ■ CORAM: ' ' ' . HON'BLE MR.,JUSTICE G.S.SISTAN! , G.S.SISTANI.. J, (ORAL), j. Pleadings in this matter arc complete. At the request of counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

¶2Counsel for the petitioner submits that by a common order dated - 16:12.2002 while disposing of Writ Petition No.3791/2000 and 842/1997, ^ . a Division 13ench of this Court had directed the M3MC or the MCD and the Government of NCT of Delhi to take all possible steps to re-locate the dairies operating in the municipal zones of Delhi to the outskirts pi Delhi. Consequent to this order on 03.09,2004 the MCD published an advertisement in the newspapers and issued a press note, informing the dairy owners regarding allotment of dairy plots in Ghogha Dairy Colony Project measuring 60 sq. mtrs. and 96 sq. mtrs. on the outskirts ol Dedn and eligible persons were called upon to apply in the prescribed application form. ' 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an application was. submitted by the W.P.(C) 5040/2011 . Pisgii 1(1/5 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. I I V petitioner on 12.09.2004 and the requisite amount was also deposited on

09.12.2004. The petitioner had mentioned in the application form, that she was running a dairy with seven cattle from her house No.b-135, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52. An allotment letter dated 23.05.2005 was issued to the petitioner, allotting a plot bearing No.D-38 measuring 60 sq. mtrs. under the said-project. Reliance is placed on an order dated 30.08.2006 passed in WP(C)No.3791/2006, wherein following directions were issued: " The running of dairy business will he the sole criteria to allot the plots with possession and if anyone found to be ineligible on the aforesaid criteria the possession shall not be given to such applicants. Similarly, if a person after taking possession of the plot is found misusing the same for the purpose other than running a dairy, the allotment will stand cancelled and money deposited will be forfeited by the MCD....." •4. Counsel for-the petitioner eontends that before-the verification could be carried out petitioner shifted her dairy to I.-259, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 from her house No.]C135, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52. It is also the case of the petitioner that an intimation in this regard was also given to the respondent. Respondent carried out verification and found that the daiiy was not running at the address mentioned in the application form.

¶5Since the petitioner was not running the dairy at the address mentioned in the application form but from another location, provisional allotment made in favour of the petitioner was eancelled in the year 2009. .

¶6By the present petition, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent to set aside the cancellation letter, cancelling plot bearing No.D-38 measuring 60 sq. mtrs. arid /or allot another plot in Ghogha Daiiy( Colony.

¶7Counsel for the MCD has ^opposed this petition primarily on the ground fV.P.(C) 5040/2011 Page 2 0/5 V

¶9I Ip that there is no infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the respondent, by which the provisional allotment made in favour ol the petitioner has been cancelled. It is submitted that one ol the basic ciiteria for allotment of a .plot was running an illegal dairy in an. urban area. Counsel iurther submits that at the time of verification it was found that petitioner was not running a dairy at the address mentioned in the application form. Counsel for the respondent submits that in fact no iritimation was sent to the respondent with regard to the change of address. I have heard counsel for. the parties and have considered their rival submissions. It is not in dispute before this court that pursuant to the press release the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot at Ghogha Dairy Colony for running a dairy. In the application form the petitioner had mentioned her address as house bearing No.E-135, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52, where she was running a dairy, whereas at the time of inspection it was found that the dairy was not running at the said address. . Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the verification form v/hich .bas been filed on record in support of her plea that the inspection team visited the. alternate site as well, which is evident from the document (annexure P-3), which has been placed on record, which reads as under; "MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DLEHl (VETERINARY SERVICES DEPARTMENT) Civil Lines ZONE Subject; Verirication regarding number of cattle found available in the illegal dairies a Survey Report thereof. Si" Book Name of Resid Dairy Whether Whether No. of Signat Remarks, No. ing applicant ential Address/ dairy dairy adult ures/ if any Nos. s Father/ Address location running running cattle thumb Husband (if at the iri Rural found at i.mpres • names different said village the time sions thereof from address (YES/ of of residenti (YES/ NO.) verificat appiica al NO.) ion nl address) . , W.P.(C) 5040/2011 Police Orficiai P.S. Sarai Rohilia S.l. Ram Nalh 667087 Smt.Vce H.No. L-259/ / No na Vaid E/135, Shastm / w/o. Shastri Nagar, / Jagdeep Nagar, belh?52 / Vaid Deihi- / Yes 52- / / E/135, No Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 V.O./officiai 'JcpU. of Animal Husbandaiy GNCTD" Total No. of animals/ are 07,/ Cow/DV Sh. Jagdecp Singh the Husband of the applicant Applicuiy shifted j his da/ry from / E/135 and / now V-running a1/!.-259, ^hastri rSiagar, / Deihi-52 V.O. of the Zone rAi.

¶10The remarks appended on the right side of the document (Annexure-P/3), reads "Applicant shifted her dairy from E-135 and now is runmng.at house noI.-259, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52. It is the case of the petitioner ( that the inspecting team visited the alternate address i.e. house no.L-259, . Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52, but it is only subsequently that the comments made in the remarks column have been scored off. The explanation rendered by counsel for the respondent in this regard is that the inspecting team was misled by the petitioner and was taken to an address, which was not mentioned in the application form. .. .

¶11The short question which arises for consideration is the effect of change of location from house No.E-135, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52 to house no.L-259,'Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52. By impugned order dated 03.12.2009 the respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner solely on the ground that during dairy verification conducted by the Zonal Verification Team, it was . observed that the petitioner was not maintaining any dairy and, therefore due to non fulfillment of the allotment criteria the petitioner was found ineligible. H:P.(C) 5040/2011

¶12l-]fewevei% taking into consideration tiiM % 'die "V^iEcation ap^ has been noted that the petitioner was running a dairy ^ butfTpm-a-($jfedre«.t' address and-taldng into consideration the cndorsemeht that' tlie applicant has shitted his dairy from one location (house ,hlo.E-135, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52) to another location'(house.l-io.L-259, Shastri; Nagar, DeiliirS?-!): in my view the impugned order should have addrpssed\1iii^'tssifc;. ^ wehc as.- reading of the verification Ibrni would cleajfy .sbpw that tlic:petitioner was running a dairy but from a different address. - dhc; efldcNGfdim endorsement would be that the petitioner wasdiafadt,runpihg:a dah^ impugned order doc^ not -give shifting . of the yflaiiy: a reason -fpf, rejection. , ' : / , t .d,;'.:

¶13Counsel for the petitioner submits that pctitiprjcf cpntinucshto run-liei-dairy business' with six cows.- Taking into eohsidbratiph .pcQii-f-kr. f^els of this case - and' the purpose for relocating'./illegal,. ._Qwhpp;.[He. impugned 'order is set aside. The fespoii^Ght hs,, directed-iLo';Cjbi;(siddi:-.i|}|i case of the-petitioner afresh. In case the •'petili oner as; foiiiid to' feOiieh gibl by an allotment will be made to the petitioner subject .to ayaih^ility of ai'pl'oi: I'd. Accordingly, writ petition, stahds disposed oi in aboye termp. No costse - - DECEMBER 20, 2012 ssnPor ly.r.(C) 5040/2(111-F!i!-<;5of5

23 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI -K W.P.(C) 5040/2011 Oyjj