CCP No. 166/2008 Page 1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 11th March, 2010 Date of Order: 16th March, 2010 CONT. CAS. (C) No. 166/2008 % 16.03.2010 Defence Colony Flyover Welfare Association ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Advocate Versus Ashok Nigam & Anr. ... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Prashant Mehra, Advocate for DDA JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred alleging non-implementation of the orders dated 2nd August, 2006 and 4th September, 2006 passed by this Court. The operative parts of the orders passed by this Court on these two dates read as under: 2.8.2006 Learned Counsel for the respondent DDA states that a decision would be taken on this petition as to the possibility of locating the premises allotted to FRI COS shortly. Let a decision be taken within two weeks. 4.9.2006 In this view of the matter the DDA and respondent no.2 and 3 are directed to inspect the premises and take suitable action, in view of the determination arrived at by them, in accordance with law. The process shall be completed at the earliest and in any case not later than within four months from today. 2. It is submitted by respondent that after passing of this order a local commissioner was appointed who visited the site and gave a report and found that clinic and surroundings thereof were hygienic and clean and this hygiene and CCP No. 166/2008 Page 2 of 2 cleanliness was also being maintained inside the clinic. No doubt he had observed that there was bad smell due to which it was impossible for even him to stand near the clinic. 3. The premises in question was allotted to the organization FRIENDICOES SECCA by MCD for the purpose for which it was being used. The NGO is functioning there for the last 20 years. The activity being carried by the NGO was legal and the activity was such that the bad smell inside or around the clinic cannot be stopped since the NGO was indulging in service of injured stray animals, who are operated and treated in the clinic. Vide its orders, the Court had not given any direction for cancellation of lease of the NGO nor given directions for shifting of the NGO to any other place. There seems to be no violation of the order of the Court. This petition is therefore not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. March 16, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. vn