High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 02 DEL CK 0042

Vijay Yadav vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 16 February 2004 · Citation: (2004) 109 DLT 894 : (2004) 74 DRJ 319

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vikramajit Sen, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 1851 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 291 words

Vikramajeet Sen, J.—Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench in WP(C) No. 3791/2000 title Common Cause (Regd. Society) v. Union of India, in which a judgment was delivered on 16.12.2002. In that case the Court was primarily concerned with stray cattle. In trying to solve that nuisance/ problem the Court had issued directions for the relocation of dairies operation in the Municipal Zone of Delhi to the outskirts of Delhi. No doubt a direction in this regard had been given. This Judgment however is of no relevance to the dispute in question. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is running a dairy from Vaishali Extension, which is essentially a residential area. If person who are using the land contrary to its permissible user will have a right to an alternative allocation, it will give a premium to the law breakers. Mr. Bajpai states that this is an unauthorised colony, or extended Lal Dora of the village. Even if this is so the present case does not fall within the ambit of the judgment mentioned above. Since the petitioner is carrying out dairy activity in an area where dairies ought not to be located, and keeping in view the fact that no license has been granted to them, there is no merit in the petition.

2.

Mr. Bajpai states that only the petitioner has been singled out whereas all the others have been given alternative sites. These events relate back to 1995 and for this Court to entertain this petition one decade later would lead to unforeseen results. In case the petitioner has been singled out for unfair treatment he may initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

The writ petition is dismissed. The application stand dismissed accordingly.