Disposed

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. v. the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2014WP/1353/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Bench disposed of two petitions challenging rejection of nursing home registration due to expired periods and lack of building consent. The Court permitted a fresh application within three weeks, mandated the Municipal Corporation to decide within two months, and extended ad-interim relief contingent on timely filing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to file fresh registration application within 3 weeks; Authority to decide within 2 months; ad-interim relief continued subject to conditions.

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Navi Mumbai… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-1353.11n138.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1353 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.138 OF 2012

¶5

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. & Others. .. Petitioners Vs The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Sharan Jagtiani along with Shri Vishal Maheshwari i/by Majmudar & Co for the Petitioners in both the Petitions.

¶7

Shri A.A.Garge for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP No.1352 of 2011 and for Respondent No.3 in WP No.138 of 2012.

¶8

Shri Atul Rajadhyaksha, senior Advocate along with Shri A.A. Khan and Shri Rahul Sharma i/by M/s. Tripathi & Co for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in WP No.1353 of 2011 and for Respondent No.4 in WP No.138 of 2012.

¶9

Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No.5 in WP No.1353 of 2011 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP No.138 of 2012.

¶10

Shri Amarsinha D. Sonkawade i/by Shri Ganesh K. Gole for Respondent No.7 in WP No.1353 of 2011.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 21ST AUGUST 2014 P.C.

¶12

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. We

¶13

have heard learned counsel appearing for the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. We have also heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the third and fourth Respondents in Writ Petition No.1353 of 2011 as well as the fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition No.138 of 2012.

¶14

In the Writ Petition No.1353 of 2011, the challenge is essentially to the communication dated 31^st August 2010 issued to the third Petitioner therein by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation by

¶15

ash 2 wp-1353.11n138.12

¶16

which the Application made by the Petitioners for grant of registration under the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949 (as amended in the year 2006) ( for short “the said Act”) was rejected. As far as the Application rejected by the communication dated 31^st August 2010 is concerned, the period for which registration was sought has expired long back. In the Writ Petition No.138 of 2012, the challenge is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of appellate powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the said Act. An Application made by the Petitioners for grant of registration under the said Act was rejected by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The Appeal was preferred by the Petitioners against the said order. The State Government which is the Appellate Authority has dismissed the Appeal.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the period for which the registration was sought by the Applications which are subject matter of both these Petitions has expired long back.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners on instructions states that the Petitioners will make a fresh application for grant of registration under the provisions of the said Act to the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation within a period of three weeks from today. He submits that the Application may be ordered to be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the orders impugned in

¶19

ash 3 wp-1353.11n138.12

¶20

these two Petitions. The learned counsel representing the third and fourth Respondents in the Writ Petition No.1353 of 2011 and the fourth Respondent in the Writ Petition No.138 of 2012 pointed out that the Applications made by the Petitioners in both these Petitions have been rejected on the ground that No Objection Certification and/or consent of the owner of the building was not produced. He, however, submits that all the issues in the fresh Application which may be made by the Petitioners may be kept open and the fresh Application can be ordered to be decided without being influenced by the orders impugned in both these Petitions. He, however, submits that a time bound programme may be fixed for the decision on the fresh Application which may be made by the Petitioners. He pointed out that by way of ad-interim relief in the Writ Petition No.1353 of 2011, the ad-interim order dated 18^th October 2010 in the Appeal from Order No.1060 of 2010 preferred by the Petitioners has been continued. He pointed out that the Application made by the Respondents in the said Appeal from Order for vacating the said ad-interim order is pending.

¶21

Considering the the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of both the Petitions by passing the following order:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

(a) It will be open for the Petitioners to make a fresh Application for grant of registration under the

¶24

ash

¶25

4 wp-1353.11n138.12

¶26

provisions of the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949;

¶27

(b) If such fresh Application is made by the Petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall decide the same within a period of two months from the date on which such Application is made;

¶28

(c) The ad-interim relief which was operative in these two Petitions till today shall continue to operate till the date of communication of the order passed on the fresh Application by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation to the Petitioners;

¶29

(d) If the order passed on the fresh Application be adverse to the Petitioners, the ad-interim relief shall continue to operate for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of the order passed on the fresh Application to the Petitioners;

ash

wp-1353.11n138.12

(e) We make it clear that if the Petitioners fail to make Application for grant of registration under the said Act within a period of three weeks from today, the ad-interim relief shall cease to operate on the expiry of the period of three week from today;

¶34

(f) We make it clear that the Application which may be made by the Petitioners shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the orders impugned in these two Petitions;

¶35

(g) We also make it clear that notwithstanding the continuation of the ad-interim relief under this order, the learned Single Judge before whom the Appeal from Order No.1060 of 2010 is pending shall decide the Application for vacating the adinterim relief in accordance with law without being influenced by continuation of the ad-interim relief by this Court;

¶36

(h) We make it clear that the issue of the failure of the Petitioners to produce no objection/consent of the owner of the building is expressly kept open which

ash

wp-1353.11n138.12

will be decided on its own merits by the Municipal Corporation;

¶41

(i) It will be open for the contesting Respondents to file their objections, if any, in writing to the Application which may be made by the Petitioners;

¶42

(j) To enable the contesting Respondents to do so, the Petitioners shall serve a copy of the application made by them to the contesting Respondents;

¶43

(k) The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation shall take into consideration the objections, if any, filed by the contesting Respondents;

¶44

(l) The Petitions are disposed of on above terms;

¶45

(G.S.KULKARNI, J)

¶46

( A.S. OKA, J )

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. v. the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. v. the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

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

Vishal Rajendra Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saifan Khajabhai Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sambhajirao Shinde Sarvajanik Vachnalaya, through President, Bhimrao Jetyappa Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Haridas Jagdale Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Smt. Pragna Ashok Patel Vs Shri. Ashok Khimjibhai Patel