Dismissed

Milin Vasant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2019PIL/38/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation and three related civil applications as infructuous. The PIL, originally seeking hospital handover to a Municipal Corporation, was revoked when the Corporation failed. Subsequently, the State Government took over management, improved hospital functions, deputed staff, and dismissed challenges against this takeover. The Court held the matter was re

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation No.38 of 2006 and Civil Applications No.199 of 2014, No.49 of 2015, No.192 of 2015 are disposed of as infructuous.

Milin Vasant Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(20)-PIL-38-06.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.38 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.199 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.192 OF 2015

¶4

Milan Vasant Mhatre ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶5

AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.49 OF 2015 IN

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.38 OF 2006

¶7

Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation ..Applicant

¶8

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶9

Milan Vasant Mhatre ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Riba Vasudevan I/by Neeta Karnik, for the Petitioner in PIL and for the Applicant in CAI No.199/2014 & CAI No.192/2015. Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in PIL & for Applicant in CAI No.49/2015.

¶11

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State.

¶12

Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No.2A- Zilla Parishad.

¶13

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 21^st AUGUST, 2019

¶14

BGP. 1 o f 4

¶15

(20)-PIL-38-06.doc .

¶16

P.C.

¶17

1] The Public Interest Litigation was filed pleading that the two Primary Health Centers managed by the Zilla Parishad were being funded by the State Government and the area fell within the jurisdiction of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. Relying upon a resolution of the Corporation to take over the management of the two hospitals the Petitioner sought a direction that the State Government as well as the Zilla Parishad should hand over the management of the two Primary Health Centers to the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation.

¶18

2] Disposing of the Public Interest Litigation on 14^th March 2014 it was directed that henceforth the two hospitals would be taken over by the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and to augment facilities therein funds would be made available by the Central Government under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission as also the State Government. 50% money required for upgradation of the facilities was directed to be provided by the Corporation.

¶19

3] Liberty was granted for revival of the Petition and we find that the Petition was revived.

¶20

4] It appears that even the Corporation could not manage the two Primary Health Centers resulting in Civil Application No.199 of

¶21

BGP. 2 o f 4

¶22

(20)-PIL-38-06.doc .

¶23

2014 being filed praying that the Corporation should refurbish the building wherefrom Temba Municipal Hospital is being run. Staff should be employed and directions be issued to the Corporation to allocate the necessary funds.

¶24

5] Civil Application No.49 of 2015 was filed praying that the State Government be directed to make available requisite number of doctors on deputation at the Temba Hospital.

¶25

6] Civil Application No.192 of 2015 was filed praying that a Court Officer be appointed to enquire why the civil work of refurbishing the hospitals was being delayed and punish the officers.

¶26

7] The aforesaid facts show that from inception the Public Interest Litigation was misdirected and the helping extended by this Court when the order was passed directing the management of the two hospitals to be handed over to the Corporation was not correct.

¶27

8] Whether the State should manage the hospitals or the Corporation should do so is a matter of policy and not for a Court to decide.

¶28

9] The pleadings in the three applications show the mess which has been created on account of the judicial order passed. The Corporation had no funds and in spite of money made available by the Central Government and the State Government it could not refurbish

¶29

BGP. 3 o f 4

¶30

(20)-PIL-38-06.doc .

¶31

the two hospitals; much less provided paramedic and the medical staff evidenced by the prayers made in three Civil Applications.

¶32

10] Be that as it may, looking at the affairs of the hospitals when the same were entrusted to the Corporation, the State Government took over the functioning of the two hospitals. The Petitioner filed PIL No.32 of 2017 and his buddy filed PIL No.3 of 2016 praying that the State Government should be injuncted from taking over the management of the two hospitals.

¶33

11] The two Public Interest Litigations were dismissed on 17^th November 2017 recording that when the two hospitals were entrusted to the Corporation things deteriorated. The order records that the move for the two hospitals to be taken over by the State should be welcomed. The order records that the State has deputed adequate staff. The order records that the working in the two hospitals has substantially improved after they were taken over by the State Government.

¶34

12] Thus, it is time to terminate proceedings in the PIL as also three Civil Applications. The PIL and the three Civil Applications are disposed of as infructuous.

¶35

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

4 o f 4

¶37

BGP.

Milin Vasant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milin Vasant Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra 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

Mr. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thru Public Prosecutor, Hc and Anr.

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Keshav Ramrao Bangar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dhananjaysinh Vinayakrao Jagtap Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Haider Ali Abdul Majeed Shaikh Vs the Honble Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Subhanalla Imtiyaz Ali Khan Vs Vice President Mhada and 7 Ors.

Ramesh Kusalkar and Ors. . Vs the State of Maharashtra .

Kishore Ganesh Kamble and 8 Ors. Vs Assistant Engineer and 5 Ors.

Mr. Vijay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thru Public Prosecutor, Hc and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Vs Shri Pramod Ravindra Dhuri and Ors.

Rajkumar Chandrasen Chavan Vs Executive Engineer and Ors.

Mr. Nitin Annarao Bhopale Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.