and 4.2 of the Lease Agreement, between the petitioner and the respondent-EDMC cannot come to his aid. Para 4.1 clearly states that Respondent No.2 would make its own arrangement for engagement of employees/labour, local or otherwise, for maintenance of the plant complex and would collect dead animals from the area of Delhi city either himself or through his sub-contractors. Para 4.2 allows the respondents to, for the said purpose, employ special contractors. No doubt, the said clause states that, in the event of a collection being done by Respondent No.2 itself, he “may preferably use the workers who have been working with contractors for removal of dead animals, registered with veterinary services department”. The said stipulation does not, however, confer on the petitioner any enforceable right to maintain a writ petition. In the first place, the said stipulation only suggests that Respondent No. 2 may preferably use workers who have been working with contractors for removal of dead animals who are registered with the Veterinary services department. It is obviously in the nature of an advisory, not a sacrosanct directive to be complied with at all costs. That apart, the said suggestion, too, would permit Respondent No.2 to employ any contractor, who is registered with the veterinary services department, and not necessarily the petitioner himself.
