Public interest litigation filed by a medical trust praying for directions to utilise a Municipal Corporation-owned premises reserved for a dispensary and to hand it over on care-taker basis. Court disposed of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
PIL-34/10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
srp
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 34 OF 2010.
Sanjay Shirke Prathishthan. ..Petitioner. Versus Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Others. ..Respondents.
Mr. Niranjan A. Mogre for the Petitioner. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP.
Ms. S. Ajitkumar for BMC.
Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : October 6, 2010.
P. C. ( Per Ranjit More, J. ) :
is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 created for the
purpose of providing free medical treatment to the poor and needy people. The petitioner has filed present petition in public interest for issuance of directions to the respondents to utilise the premises on plot City Survey No.18 at Banganga Road for the purpose of which it is reserved, namely, dispensary. The petitioner also prayed for directions to the respondents to hand over the said premises to them on care taker basis. The petitioner contends that plot bearing City
PIL-34/10
-: 2 :-
Survey No.18 at Banganga Road is reserved for dispensary in development plan of respondent no.1. In the year 1987, dispensary was started by respondent nos.1 to 3 with facilities such as dental clinic, X-ary facility, first aid treatment, primary health care, etc. The said facilities were continued till 2003, however, thereafter dispensary was suddenly closed down by respondents and health care centre came to be started. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the closure of the dispensary, poor persons living in the slums nearby are affected. The petitioner applied to respondent–Corporation seeking permission to adopt municipal dispensary on care taker basis. However, same was refused. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of assurance given by the respondents, the dispensary is not made functional. The inaction on the part of 1st respondent – Corporation has been causing great hardships to the poor people residing in the nearby vicinity.
PIL-34/10
-: 3 :-
that the premises on CTS No. 18 consists of four floors; ground floor was used for dispensary-cum-health activity and upper four floors were used as residential municipal quarters. It is further submitted that initially in the year 1987, the dispensary was started with the facilities of dental clinic, screening facility etc. The said facilities were continued upto 2003. However, subsequently the attendance of the patients had decreased due to construction of high rise buildings in the surrounding area; and therefore, this dispensary was closed down with effect from 1/4/2003. However, the health post activities were being carried out at the same place till the year 2009. It is also stated that building on CTS No.18 was declared unfit for human habitation and therefore required to be demolished and re-constructed and in these circumstances the health post activities were shifted in nearby Municipal School with effect from 28.6.2009 and the facilities mentioned above are provided by the health post to the local residents in the same way it was provided from the dispensary on CTS No. 18 in past. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply following statement is made :
“I say that now the Executive Engineer (Planning and Development) has been asked to look after the work of demolition and reconstruction and there is provision of Rs.1.5 crores for the upgradation of public health institutions,
PIL-34/10
-: 4 :-
dispensaries and regional health care under the public health department.”
. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for handing over possession of the premises to them on care taker basis is concerned, it is the stand of the respondent-Corporation that as per the policy of the Corporation it is mandatory that before giving any premises belonging to the Corporation to the private party for conducting health care activities, advertisement in newspapers inviting bids has to be given. Therefore, the request of the petitioner in this regard cannot be granted.
-: 5 :-
PIL-34/10
made financial provision also. It is clear from the statement contained in affidavit-in-reply that provision of Rs.1.5 crore is made for reconstruction and upgradation of the public health institutions, dispensaries, etc. We hope and trust that the respondent-Corporation will carry out the work of demolition and re-construction of the building at the earliest, so as to provide medical facilities to the general public residing in the nearby vicinity.
(Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)
(R.V. More, J.)
Sanjay Shirke Prathishthan
Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika
Ranjana Desai
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
