judgement of delhi high court disposing a writ petition seeking solution to menace of peeing in...

2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1969/2014 MANOJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.A.K.Mishra, Advocae with Mr.M.K.Upadhyay, Advocate versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI and ANR. ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Nanda, Advocate with Mr.M.K.Vikkey, Advocate for R1. Ms.Mini Pushkarna, Advocate with Ms.Yoothika Pallavi, Advocate for MCD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ORDER 26.03.2014 1. The writ petition raises an issue which this Court, if at all it can solve could do so in a clumsy way. The petitioner has filed photographs showing that residents of buildings and especially Group Housing Complex, fed up with the Indian habit of relieving the pressure on the bladder by unzipping and peeing on the first wall seen by the person is sought to be curtailed, if not at all prohibited, by affixing photographs deities on

Upload: latest-laws-team

Post on 16-Dec-2015

54 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Judgement of Delhi High Court disposing a Writ Petition seeking solution to menace of peeing in Public places

TRANSCRIPT

  • 28/06/2015 delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=64115&yr=2014

    http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=64115&yr=2014 1/2

    INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHIW.P.(C)1969/2014MANOJSHARMA.....PetitionerRepresentedby:Mr.A.K.Mishra,AdvocaewithMr.M.K.Upadhyay,AdvocateversusGOVTOFNCTOFDELHIandANR......RespondentRepresentedby:Mr.RajivNanda,AdvocatewithMr.M.K.Vikkey,AdvocateforR1.Ms.MiniPushkarna,AdvocatewithMs.YoothikaPallavi,AdvocateforMCD.CORAM:HON'BLEMR.JUSTICEPRADEEPNANDRAJOGHON'BLEMS.JUSTICEDEEPASHARMAORDER26.03.20141.ThewritpetitionraisesanissuewhichthisCourt,ifatallitcansolvecoulddosoinaclumsyway.ThepetitionerhasfiledphotographsshowingthatresidentsofbuildingsandespeciallyGroupHousingComplex,fedupwiththeIndianhabitofrelievingthepressureonthebladderbyunzippingandpeeingonthefirstwallseenbythepersonissoughttobecurtailed,ifnotatallprohibited,byaffixingphotographsdeitieson

  • 28/06/2015 delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=64115&yr=2014

    http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=64115&yr=2014 2/2

    thewalls.Thehopewouldbethatman,thegreatestcreationoftheinfiniteartist,wouldnotdarehispriviesinfrontofhislordandwouldnoturinateontheroad.2.Inspitethereof,thephotographsevidencethatthepressureonthebladderisblatantlyrelievedbyvirtuallypeeingonthephotographsofonceGod.3.Notonlythatthephotographsatpage26wouldrevealthattoshametheoffendertheownersofthecomplexhavewrittengraffitithat?Lookhereadogandadonkeyispeeing?.Inspitethereof,amanisseenpeeingonthewall.4.Now,nobodycanpreventapersonfromaffixingphotographsofdeitiesonthewallsofhishouseoronthewallsofaGroupHousingComplex.ThedirectionsoughttobeissuedagainsttheresidentsthatphotographsofGodsbedirectedtoberemovedcannotbeissuedbyus.Themenaceofurinatinginpublichastobesolvedelsewhere.5.SurelythisCourtcannotmakesamanwalksoutofhishousehiszipshouldbelocked.6.Thewritpetitionstandsdisposedof.PRADEEPNANDRAJOG,J.DEEPASHARMA,J.MARCH26,2014skb$10