Dismissed

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya, through Secretary, Dr. M. H. Paranjap v. the Divisional Health Officer,, Divisional Office NO.3 (Health), Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jan 2016WP/3389/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking registration of an Ayurved nursing home. It held that an effective statutory appeal under section 8(3) of the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949 was available to the petitioner, rendering the writ infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition declined to be entertained in the interest of statutory remedy under section 8(3) of the Act.

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2016)

wp3389

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.3389 OF 2014

¶5

Ayurved Shikshan Mandal's Dharmarth
Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya
vs.
The Divisional Health officer
and another

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.Hitesh Vyas for the Petitioner
None for the respondents

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG, JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 4, 2016

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1The petitioner made an application for grant of
registration under section 4 read with section 5 of
the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act,1949 (for
short `the said Act'). By communications dated 25th
and 26th July 2013 the petitioner has been informed
that due to failure to make procedural compliances,
the application for registration stands filed, and
therefore, an action will be taken under section 6
of the said Act. Under sub-section (3) of section 8
of the said Act, there is a provision made for
preferring an appeal against the order of refusal.
In the present case, what is stated in the letters
dated 25th and 26th July 2013 amounts to an order of
refusal. The submission is that a proper
opportunity of being heard was not granted to the
petitioner. Even this issue can be agitated in the
statutory appeal.

¶12

wp3389

¶13

¶14

2Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India on the ground that a statutory remedy under
sub-section (3) of section 8 is available to the
petitioner. If the petitioner prefers an appeal
under sub-section (3) of section 8 of the said Act,
the concerned Appellate Authority is bound to note
that the present petition was filed on 31st January
2014 and the same remained pending in this Court
till today. Writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.

¶15

3 All contentions on merits are kept open.

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya, through Secretary, Dr. M. H. Paranjap v. the Divisional Health Officer,, Divisional Office NO.3 (Health), Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayurved Shikshan Mandals Dharmarth Ashtang Ayurved Rugnalaya, through Secretary, Dr. M. H. Paranjap v. the Divisional Health Officer,, Divisional Office NO.3 (Health), Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.

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

Mr. Kamod Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Jeevanrao Vishwanathrao Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Kisan Shankar Sakpal and Ors. Vs the Panchayat Samiti, Mahad, through Block Development Officer and Ors.

Vishnu Babaji Rane Vs Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Babu Kalappa Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shaikh Mohd Shabbir Vs the State of Maharashtra and 14 Other