Dismissed

Rashtriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its Sec. Arun Govind Damle and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Sec. Mantralaya Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2014WP/1319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought a grant to meet employee salaries or, alternatively, permission to close an Urban Health Centre. The court held that closing such a centre is the Trust's prerogative and no prior state permission is needed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioner-Trust is free to close the Urban Health Centre without previous state permission.

Rashtriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its Sec. Arun… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/2

¶2

wp1319.1 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1319 OF 2013

¶5

Rashtriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal and another

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Union of India and others

¶8

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

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Mr.A.R.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.N.S.Khubalkar, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 16.07.2014.

¶13

By this petition, the petitioners had sought a direction to the respondents to sanction and release the suitable amount of grant to the petitioner No.2 to meet the salary of the employees working in Nagari Arogya Kendra run by the petitioner No.1-Trust in view of the permission granted by the State. In the alternative, the petitioners had sought a permission from the respondents to close the Nagari Arogya Kendra, which is run with the assistance of the petitioner No.1-Trust.

¶14

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has tendered the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in the Court today. It is stated in paragraph No.3 of the reply that if the petitioner-Trust desires to close the Urban Health Centre, the petitioner-Trust is free to do so and a decision to that effect could be taken by the petitionerTrust on its own. It is further clarified in the affidavit-inreply that there is no necessity of obtaining previous permission of the State Government before closing the Urban Health Centre.

¶15

2/2

¶16

wp1319.1 3

¶17

In view of the statement made by the respondent No.3 in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit-in-reply, the alternate prayer made by the petitioner-Trust stands granted. The petitioner-Trust is free to close the Urban Health Centre as and when the petitioner-Trust desires to do so.

¶18

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶19

JUDGE JUDGE

¶20

KHUNTE

Rashtriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its Sec. Arun Govind Damle and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Sec. Mantralaya Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Vaidyak Prasarak Mandal Thr. Its Sec. Arun Govind Damle and Anr. v. the Union of India Thr. Its Sec. Mantralaya Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeepkumar S/O Shri Indal Bhimte Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Pramod S/O Shankarrao Khadse Vs the Head Master, Shri Gurudeo Ashram School, Masona Tah. Achalpur Dist. Amravati

Shrikant S/O Baliram Chauhan Vs the Collector and President of District Selection Committee Yavatmal

Yuvraj S/O Bhaurao More Vs Dwarka Bahuuddeshiya Gramin Vikas Foundation, Thr. Its President and Anr.

Ku. Nisha Tularam Ukey and 6 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary and 6 Others

Shri Jabbar Khan S/O Rahman Khan Vs State of Maharashtra through Ministary of Education and Others