Disposed

Pramod S/O Laxmanrao Narad and 3 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 7 Others

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013PIL/78/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The PIL regarding non-compliance with sanctioned building plans by the respondent hospital was disposed of. The court directed the Municipal Corporation to decide on the regularization application for the skywalk, with an undertaking to demolish it within seven days if refused.

What did the court decide?

Decision on skywalk regularization application ordered; undertaking to demolish within 7 days if refused.

Pramod S/O Laxmanrao Narad and 3 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 7 Others — Bombay HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

23.10PIL78.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 78 OF 2012 Pramod Laxmanrao Narad & others .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr. Shantanu Khedkar, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. N.W. Sambre, G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 6 & 8, Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. M.V. Samarth, Advocate for respondent no.5, Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.A. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.7.

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

¶8

DATED : OCTOBER 23, 2013.

¶9

The Public Interest Litigation raises a grievance that the hospital constructed by respondent no.7 was not constructed in accordance with the sanctioned building plans.

¶10

An affidavit has been placed on record by the respondent no.2 Nagpur Municipal Corporation stating that the revised plan has been sanctioned subject to the three conditions :-

¶11

I. Removal of skywalk,

¶12

¶13

23.10PIL78.12

¶14

II. Removal of oxygen cylinder room, shed, etc.

¶15

III. Construction of additional R.C.C. Staircase as fire safety measure.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in so far as the two conditions regarding removal of oxygen cylinder room, shed and construction of additional R.C.C. Staircase is concerned, the same have been complied with.

¶17

It is, however, submitted that in so far as skywalk is concerned, the respondent no.7 has already applied for regularization of the same to the respondent Municipal Corporation. The respondent no.7 further submits that in the event the Corporation does not regularize the same, the respondent no.7 undertakes to demolish the same within a period of seven days after receipt of communication from the Corporation.

¶18

In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of. The Municipal Corporation is directed to decide the application of respondent no. 7 for regularization of skywalk. If the respondent Corporation refuses to regularize the said skywalk, the respondent no.7 shall demolish the said skywalk within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the communication from the Corporation.

¶19

23.10PIL78.12

¶20

¶21

Copy of the order authenticated by P.S. may be supplied to the parties, on payment of usual copying charges, to act upon.

¶22

Judge Judge J.

Pramod S/O Laxmanrao Narad and 3 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O Laxmanrao Narad and 3 Others v. the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Health Department and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Devidas Khaladkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gorakh Jagannath Chaudhari Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Imran Shaikh Jilani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadasaheb Fakira Nikam and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Harit Vasai Saurakshsn Smirti Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janardan Kundalikrao Pharande and Ors. Vs Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Mohammad Yasin Qureshi S/O Mohammad Latif Qureshi and Anr. Vs Kantibhai S/O Bhiwajibhai Suchak and Anr.

Shagir @ Tunnu Mukhtyar Ahemad Siddiqui Vs the State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Ghughus and 2 Oths

Sy. Ibrahim Sy. Salim @ Baba Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O.

M/S Ramkrishna Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Directorate General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Anr.

M/S S N Imp Vs the Additional Directorate General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Anr.

Shri Yogendra Rajeshwar Modak Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secty. to the Govt. of Maharashtra