upa 1 wp2233-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2233 OF 2010 Mohammed Jajal Dadu ).. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, ) Agriculture, Animal Husbandary, Dairy Development ) and Fisheries Department and others ).. Respondents Mr. D.V. Dhopatkar for the Petitioner. Ms Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2010 P. C. : What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 20 September 2003 passed by respondent No.4 Chief Executive Officer, Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai allotting cattle shed in Aarey Milk Colony to respondent Nos.5 to 15. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s application for allotment of cattle shed in Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (East), Mumbai and to grant licence of cattle shed. 2. As far as challenge to the allotment dated 20 September 2003 in favour of respondent Nos.5 to 15 is concerned, there is obviously gross delay of seven years in filing the petition. upa 2 wp2233-10 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner had to seek information under the Right to Information Act and in the process of getting replies to the petitioner’s queries under the said Act, some time was consumed. Hence, the petition may not be dismissed on the ground of delay. 4. The petitioner has not even explained the delay between the date of allotment i.e. 20 September 2003 and the date of coming into force of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As per the settled legal position, this Court is not to entertain stale claims in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when third party rights have emerged in the mean time. If the impugned allotment order dated 20 September 2003 is set aside, respondent Nos.5 to 15 will lose the cattle shed allotted to them seven years back. 5. As regards the contention that the petitioner’s application made in the year 1995 ought to have been granted, the material on record clearly indicates that there was ban on allotment of cattle sheds till 2003 and, therefore, if the petitioner was interested in getting allotment of a cattle shed after 2003, the petitioner ought to have made a fresh application. At this point of time, the petitioner’s request for allotment of cattle shed on the basis of his application made in the year 1995 cannot be granted. If at all the petitioner is interested in getting allotment of cattle shed, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application which will be considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. upa 3 wp2233-10 6. The petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of gross delay without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to make a fresh application. If and when such an application is made by the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.