Dismissed

Yeshwantrao Shamrao Wadile and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014WP/2429/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions against medical practitioners alleged to conduct private practice. The court found the petition's purpose was served as an enquiry was conducted and officers relieved, ordering disposal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stood disposed of; rule discharged; cost deposited transferred to High Court Legal Services Authority.

Yeshwantrao Shamrao Wadile and Ors. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2429.02.doc

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2002

¶5

1.	Yashwantrao s/o Shamrao Wadile age 32 years, occ. Social worker
2.	Rajendra s/o Baburao Bangre age 33 years, occ. Social worker
3.	Rakesh s/o Pralhadrao Patil age 28 years, occ. Social worker
4.	Bhagwan s/o narayandas Rupchandani age 50 years, occ. Social worker
5.	Rajendra s/o Pundalik Choudhari age 40 years, occ. Social worker
	All r/o Station area, Dondaicha,, Dist. Dhule.	.. PETITIONERS
VER	SUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.	Director of Health Mumbai at Mumbai Sait George Hspital Mumbai.
3.	Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Dhule.
4.	Dr. Santosh s/o dinesh Avhad age major, occ. Medical practitioner, r/o Station area, Dondaicha Dist. Dhule.
5.	Dr. Bhalchandra s/o Lunkaran Jain age major, occ Medical practitioner near Shivaji Statute, Dondaicha Dist. Dhule.	..RESPONDENTS

¶6

Mr. K. C. Sant, advocate for petitioners.

¶7

wp2429.02.doc

¶8

¶9

Mr. K. G. Patil, AGP for the State. Mr. A. B. Girase, advocate for respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶10

=====

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2014.

¶12

JUDGMENT : ( PER R. M. BORDE, J. )

¶13

Petitioners are praying for issuance of directions to respondents to take appropriate action against respondent nos. 4 and 5 who were at relevant time functioning as Medical Practitioner at Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule. Prayer is also made for issuance of direction to respondent nos. 1 to 3 to effect transfer of both the Medical Officers out of village Dondaicha.

¶14

It is alleged that although the Medical officers are appointed to render services in the Cottage Hospital, they have started private practice and are entertaining and treating patients at their private clinic. Affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of the Deputy Director of Health Services wherein it has been stated that appropriate enquiry has been conducted in respect of the allegations made in the petition and it has been disclosed that both the Medical Officers are running private hospitals. It has further been stated in the reply that departmental enquiry has been initiated against both the officers and they were dealt with in accordance with law. It is also further disclosed that both the officers have been relieved from Cottage Hospital, Dondaicha on 04.04.2003 in observance of the order issued by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nasik and, at the given time, they were not functioning as Medical Officer at Dondaicha.

¶15

wp2429.02.doc

¶16

¶17

On perusal of affidavit-in-reply it appears that the purpose of presentation of petition has been served and the petition needs to be disposed of. Respondent no. 4 has presented affidavit-in-reply wherein it has been disclosed that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the Town President and Vice President of Shiv Sena political party. Petitioner no. 2 was exCouncillor in Dondaicha Municipal Council. Petitioner no. 3 is President of Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha while petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are the active political workers of Bhartiya Janata party and also ex-councillors. It is contended that the petition has not been presented in larger public interest. It is also further contended that petitioners are involved in large number of criminal cases and their past record is not clean. It is further stated that it is the tendency of petitioners to extend threats and extract money from Government officers. We do not deem it necessary to go into the allegations and counter allegations made by respective party. Since the purpose of presentation of petition is served, we do not deem it necessary to issue further direction in the petition. Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. The amount of cost which has already been deposited shall be transferred to the account of High Court Legal services Authority, Aurangabad and, the learned counsel for petitioners has no serious objection for the same.

¶18

Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶19

( V. L. ACHLIYA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Yeshwantrao Shamrao Wadile and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yeshwantrao Shamrao Wadile and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Ashok Murlidhar More Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramila Julal Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Khaja Osmanuddin Khaja Aminuddin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Bansilal Bora and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Parubai Kishan Mule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Navnath Aabarao Tupe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.