Petitioner filed PIL alleging MHADA lease breaches by Lilavati Hospital. Court held lease expired in Dec 2015 and MHADA had already taken action. PIL dismissed.
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.
1/4
PILL/62/2016
BDPPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.62 OF 2016
Nilesh Ramchandra Dahanukar
….. Petitioner.
V/s
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
…... Respondents.
Mr. Harish R. Pawar for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Gatagat i/b Vidhi Partners for Respondent Nos. 3 and 13. Mr. Vaibhav M. Parashurami for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: 18th August, 2016
P.C.:-
“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and Respondent No.1 be directed to initiate enquiry in respect of the matter of execution of Lease Deed dated 31st January 1989 in respect of the said plot of land executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.3.
(b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and Respondent No.1 be directed to initiate enquiry in respect of the matter of
2/4
PILL/62/2016
execution of further lease deed / renewal of lease in respect of the said plot of land by Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.3.
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to submit the report with regards to the breaches and violations of Lease Deed dated 31st January 1989 committed by Respondent No.3 and what action initiated by Respondent No.2 against Respondent No.3 for the same.
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be restrained from executing further Lease Deed and / or renew the lease for further period in respect of the said plot of land in favour of Respondent No.3.
(e) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) above be granted.
(f) Any other and further reliefs be granted in the favour of the Petitioner.
(g) That the cost of the petition be provided for.”
3/4
PILL/62/2016
purpose of Hospital. Lilavati Trust has entered into agreement of lease with Union of Bank of India. It is submitted that there is a clear breach of clause 2(d) of the said lease deed. Secondly, it is submitted that clause 2(m) also in terms states that the Hospital shall not assign, sublet, underlet or otherwise transfer any part of the land without the permission of the authority. It is submitted that while entering into lease agreement with the Bank, permission from the concerned authority was not obtained. Thirdly, it is submitted that under clause 2(q), a Chief Officer or any Officer nominated by the Chief Officer of Bombay Housing and Area Development Board has to be taken on the Managing Committee of the Hospital. It is submitted that the Hospital has also not appointed any person nominated by the Chief Officer during all these years and, lastly, it is submitted that one of the conditions of the lease agreement was to reserve 15 (Fifteen) Cots for employees of MHADA at normal charges which also is not being complied with.
4/4
PILL/62/2016
resolved that in respect of violation of clause 2(m) of the lease agreement the Trust should pay 25% of the rent which it obtains from subletting of the premises/land and also pay the amount of interest @ 10% on the outstanding amount. Further, decision was also taken to direct the trust to pay penalty charges equivalent to 75% of the dues. So far as the violation of clause 2(q) of the lease agreement is concerned, it was resolved that the Chief Officer or any other Officer nominated by the Chief Officer shall be taken on the Advisory Board and, lastly, so far as violation of clause 2(s) is concerned, it was resolved that 25 Costs shall be reserved for employees of MHADA and 25% discount on the total medical bills shall be offered to the employees of MHADA. In view of this also, PIL does not survive.
(MRS SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation seeking enforcement of alleged lease deed breaches survives when the lease period has expired.
Nilesh Ramchandra Dahanukar
State of Maharashtra
BDPPS
V. M. Kanade
Mrs. Swapna Joshi
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
