AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner claiming to be a resident of House No. 127, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi filed this writ petition for directing the Respondents MCD and the Police Authorities to stop the Respondent No. 4 from operating illegal Atta Chakki and Masala Chakki from Property No. 130-B, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the street in front of House No. 130-B, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi from which the Atta Chakki is being run by the Respondent No. 4 is hardly about five meters wide and no Atta Chakki can be permitted to be run there from.
Notice of the writ petition was issued and the Respondent No. 1 MCD filed an affidavit dated 6/10th August, 2007 in which it was inter alia stated that the factory license for Atta Chakki had been issued to the Respondent No. 4 with load of 5 KW at ground floor of the property under the household category.
On grievance of the Petitioner that the load of the electricity connection with which the Respondent No. 4 was running the Atta Chakki was beyond 5 KW as permitted, on 13th August, 2007 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. was impleaded as the Respondent No. 6.
The Respondent No. 1 MCD has since filed an additional affidavit dated 22nd September, 2010 in which it is also stated that the municipal license has been issued to Respondent No. 4 on the basis of ''No Objection Certificate'' (NOC) dated 3rd February, 2007 of the High Power Committee constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court; that on inspection, the Respondent No. 4 was found running an Atta Chakki; that para 7.4 of MPD-2021 permits household industrial units with maximum 5 workers and 5 kilowatt power to be allowed to continue in residential areas and in the list of household industries given in the Master Plan itself Atta Chakki finds mention. It is thus contended that the Respondent No. 4 is running the Atta Chakki in accordance with law and no action there against is called for.
The counsel for the Petitioner has then contended that the electricity load allowed for Atta Chakki is more than 5 KW. Attention in this regard is invited to the first document annexed to the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 6 and in which the load is mentioned as 7.50 KW. The counsel for the Respondent No. 6 BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. has however stated that the said document pertains to the year 1978 and in the subsequent bills filed, the load is shown as of 5 KW. It is thus contended that there is no non-compliance on that ground also.
In view of the aforesaid provisions, there is no merit in the claim of the Petitioner for direction to the authorities to stop the Respondent No. 4 from running the Atta Chakki.
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.