Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 877 (DEL)

A. I. LAWYERS UNION v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

1998-10-29

MUKUL MUDGAL

body1998
Anil Dev Singh ( 1 ) NO. L on 28. 10,98 it is clear that 34 schools are being run by the MCD in completely tented accommodations. Besides 91 schools are being run by it in semitented accommodation. Learned counsel for MCD states that MCD is taking steps to construct buildings for the schools which are being run in tents. He further states that in case where it is not possible to raise buildings, he will advise his client to use prefabricated material. We hope and trust that immediate steps shall be taken by the MCD for providing buildings or pre fabricated accommodation in place of tents for the schools. On or before the next date the MCD shall file details of the plans for raising construction or providing pre fabricated accommodation in place of tents. Our attention has been drawn to the photographs of some of the schools and the toilets thereof. They appear to be in a bad shape. The MCD shall get in touch with Sulabh International and explore the possibility of providing Sulabh Sauchalaya in the schools were there are no proper toilets. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for MCD states that each Corporator is being given a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs for maintenance and unkeep of the schools located in their respected constituencies. The MCD shall file an affidavit stating as to how much money has been spent by each Corporator on the maintenance of the schools and whether any monitoring has been done to find out whether money has been properly utilised for the purpose for which it was given. MCD is directed to install water coolers in each of the schools. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that in one of the schools in Navin Shahadara the employees of the MCD have occupied the class room. Counsel of MCD will see that the premises are vacated forthwith. MCD is also directed to specify in the affidavit as to what steps are being taken by them in this direction. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has not filed the counter affidavit. He may file the same positively within 4 weeks. Petitioner shall supply complete set of papers to counsel for respondent No. 2 within one week. ( 5 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to visit the schools in order to ascertain their present conditions. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has not filed the counter affidavit. He may file the same positively within 4 weeks. Petitioner shall supply complete set of papers to counsel for respondent No. 2 within one week. ( 5 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to visit the schools in order to ascertain their present conditions. List the matter on 30th November, 1998. Dasti.