Subhash Vs. Delhi Pollution Control Committee and ors.

Subhash vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided Dec 18, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707433

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/707433
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Manmohan Sarin, J.
Decided On: Dec 18, 2001
Case Number: CW No. 5204 and C.M. 8038/2000
Subject: Environment
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case debated on the maintainability of writ filed under Articles 226 and 21 of the Constitution of India - It was observed that the petition was filed out of professional jealousy - The petitioner had no personal grievances and the petition was not a bona fide land was actuated by mala fides - In view of the fac...

Key legal issue: Environment
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subhash

Advocate Shahid Ali, Adv

Respondent

Delhi Pollution Control Committee and ors.

Advocate Ravinder Chadha, Navin Chawla and ; Ajay Gupta, Advs.

Legal References

Reported In: 95(2002)DLT650

Excerpt

the case debated on the maintainability of writ filed under articles 226 and 21 of the constitution of india - it was observed that the petition was filed out of professional jealousy - the petitioner had no personal grievances and the petition was not a bona fide land was actuated by mala fides - in view of the facts, it was ruled that the writ petition so filed was liable to be dismissed - .....pollution and also directing respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 to take appropriate and effective steps to curb/check the pollution and seal the polluting unit in accordance with law. it is further prayed that respondent no. 4's activity of repairing, manufacturing of generator/industrial activities in a residential area be stopped.2. learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for being permitted to file rejoinder. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have taken the inspection report handed over by respondent no. 1 on record. i see no need for rejoinder.3. mr. ravinder chadha counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that an inspection h as been carried out by the delhi pollution control committee and they have found that the shop in question is a very small shop having an area of 8 sq. yds. it is further stated that on inspection only a portable generator set of one kw was found. further, there was no manufacturing activity going on and it was only a small repair shop. learned counsel submits that there is no pollution being carried out or caused by respondent no. 4's activities. learned counsel for respondent no. 4 mr. ajay gupta has filed an affidavit where it is stated that the petitioner has been set up by the previous employer of respondent no. 4 out of vengeance and sheer professional jealousy. it is stated that respondent no. 1 was employed with one mr. tarun sikri. he submits that this is a petition actuated by malafides and professional jealousy of his former employer and the petitioner has been used for the said purpose. from the facts it is revealed that the petitioner is a resident of gandhi nagar and the shop in question is situated at a distance of more 1 1/2 kms away. it is apparent that the petitioner himself cannot have any personal grievance in this regard. learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify that the petitioner is a dealer in electric goods and, thereforee, when he passes in front of the respondent no. 4's shop he.....

Full Judgment

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to respondent No. 4 to stop the spreading/emitting of pollution and also directing respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 to take appropriate and effective steps to curb/check the pollution and seal the polluting unit in accordance with law. It is further prayed that respondent No. 4's activity of repairing, manufacturing of generator/industrial activities in a residential area be stopped.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer for being permitted to file rejoinder. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have taken the inspection report handed over by respondent No. 1 on record. I see no need for rejoinder.

3. Mr. Ravinder Chadha counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that an inspection h as been carried out by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee and they have found that the shop in question is a very small shop having an area of 8 sq. yds. It is further stated that on inspection only a portable generator set of one KW was found. Further, there was no manufacturing activity going on and it was only a small repair shop. Learned counsel submits that there is no pollution being carried out or caused by respondent No. 4's activities. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 Mr. Ajay Gupta has filed an affidavit where it is stated that the petitioner has been set up by the previous employer of respondent No. 4 out of vengeance and sheer professional jealousy. It is stated that respondent No. 1 was employed with one Mr. Tarun Sikri. He submits that this is a petition actuated by malafides and professional jealousy of his former employer and the petitioner has been used for the said purpose. From the facts it is revealed that the petitioner is a resident of Gandhi Nagar and the shop in question is situated at a distance of more 1 1/2 kms away. It is apparent that the petitioner himself cannot have any personal grievance in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to justify that the petitioner is a dealer in electric goods and, thereforee, when he passes in front of the respondent No. 4's shop he would be affected by the pollution. Petitioner has no locus. This is not a public interest litigation.

4. Considering the inspection report, which is filed by respondent No. 1 it is apparent that this is not a bona fide litigation and is actuated by malafides. The writ jurisdiction is very often sought to be misused to settle private inter se disputes and acrimony. Such litigation has to be deprecated. Counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that there is also the aspect of running of a shop without a license. The said grievance will be looked into by the respondent-MCD and if true, action will be taken in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within four weeks.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Subhash vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and ors. Same Subject Environment Same Judge Manmohan Sarin, J.

Environment