Disposed

M/S Rishu Medical Medical Store v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2019WRIC/33710/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an order allowing District Hospital authorities to raise a boundary wall. The court held that the petitioner had no easementary right to stop the construction and directed authorities to proceed with raising the wall while noting that drug sale regulations still apply.

What did the court decide?

Director to respondent authorities to raise the height of the District Hospital boundary wall as necessary without restriction imposed on the petitioner regarding the wall construction.

M/S Rishu Medical Medical Store Vs State of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33710 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Rishu Medical Medical Store Respondent :- State of U.P. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

¶7

This writ petition under Article 226 has been filed challenging order dated 04.07.2019 wherein spot inspection was made at petitioner's Medical Store which is adjacent to Boundary wall of District Hospital and inspection-team consisting of Chief Superintendent, District Hospital, Assistant Commissioner (Medicines), Drugs Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Basti found that petitioner had indulged in selling medicines by keeping a Bench on the boundary wall of Hospital and using a staircase. Thereupon they sealed illegal exit of shop towards boundary wall and warned petitioner.

¶8

It is said that there is already a suit pending and matter also came before this Court wherein suit was directed to be decided expeditiously but respondents are violating the same and have passed impugned order without any show cause notice.

¶9

Copy of Plaint has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition and therefrom we find that respondents have found that petitioner has opened a medical shop close to boundary wall of District Hospital and when District Hospital authorities started to raise their boundary wall, petitioner filed aforesaid suit with a prayer that they should not raise their boundary wall so as to affect opening and exit of petitioner's shop. Relief sought in the suit reads as under:

¶10

^^v- U;k;ky; dh fMxjh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk }kjk izfroknh x.k dks lnSo ds fy, oftZr dj fn;k tkos fd os oknhx.k ds esfMdy LVksj dh nqdkus ftudks uD'kk

¶11

¶12

utjh okn i= esa nqdku ua0 1 o 2 djds fn[kk;k x;k gS] ds lkeus iwjc rjQ fLFkr pgkjnhokjh ,-ch- uD'kk utjh okn i= ftldh ÅapkbZ nks <kbZ fQV gS oks mlls vf/kd Åapk u djs vkSj u mDr nhoky ij dksbZ fuekZ.k dk;Z djsa vkSj u oknhx.k ds nqdkuksa ds vksifuax o fudkl dks nhoky Åapk djds cUn djsa vkSj u oknh x.k ds O;olk; esa dksbZ gLr{ksi djsA

¶13

c- okn O;; oknhx.k dh izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

¶14

l- vykok ;k ctk; oknh ftl fdlh mipkj dk vf/kdkjh ik;k tkos rks mldh Hkh fMxzh oknh dks izfroknh x.k ds fo:) iznku dh tkosA**

¶15

“A- Through a permanent injunction by a decree of court, the defendants may please be restrained for ever from raising to 2- 2 ½ ft height of the boundary wall shown as 'A. B.' in the sitemap, situated towards the east and in front of the shops of medical stores owned by the plaintiffs and marked as nos. 1 and 2 in the site map; from undertaking construction on the wall; from closing the opening and exist of the plaintiffs' shops by raising height; and from causing any obstruction to the business of the plaintiffs.

¶16

B- The costs may please be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendants.

¶17

C- Additionally or alternatively, a decree may please be awarded In favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for whichever reliefs the plaintiffs are found entitled to.”

¶18

(English Translation by Court)

¶19

Petitioner had also submitted application for interim injunction which was rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2017 whereafter he preferred Appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter petitioner came to this Court in Writ Petition (Writ-C) No. 26527 of 1998 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 15.05.2012 requesting Trial Court to decide suit as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight months and parties were directed to maintain status-quo till the disposal of suit. It is said that suit has not been decided.

¶20

¶21

Taking advantage of the situation, petitioner started selling medicines by keeping a Bench on the boundary wall itself and this was found in a surprise inspection made by Committee constituted by District Magistrate.

¶22

We are unable to understand as to what right petitioner has to restrict or prevent authorities of District Hospital from raising their boundary wall. In this regard petitioner has neither any easementary right nor any otherwise could be shown. The authorities are entitled to raise boundary wall upto the height they decide, or it is necessary or required. Petitioner has no role in this respect at all.

¶23

That being so, we direct respondents not to interfere in the work of petitioner with regard to selling medicines in his shop but make it clear that respondents are at liberty to raise height of boundary wall of District Hospital as it is necessary and they desire and in that respect there shall not be any restriction. We also make it clear that running of shop is subject to compliance of law and any authority may take action, under law changing the position of sale of medicines and there is no blanket protection under this order.

¶24

The writ petition is, disposed of, accordingly.

¶25

Order Date :- 21.10.2019 PS

M/S Rishu Medical Medical Store v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rishu Medical Medical Store v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Samarjeet Singh (Minor Detenue) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vindhya Bharati Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Executive Engineer (Distribution) Electricity Distribution Division and Another Vs Presiding Officer Electricity Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Another

Mithai Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Dinesh Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Upendra Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others