Disposed

Dattatray Tatoba Shenadge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Public Health Department and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2019PIL/98/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single paragraph order (para 14) directing the Secretary, Public Health Department, Maharashtra to treat the PIL as a representation and pass orders. If facilities are needed, coordinate with Finance for budget allocation from 01.04.2020.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary, Public Health Department to treat the PIL as a representation and pass appropriate orders for budgetary allocation for medical facilities.

Dattatray Tatoba Shenadge Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

(13) PIL 98-19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 98 OF 2019

¶5

Dattatray Tatoba Shendge .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

None for the Petitioner. Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 1 st OCTOBER, 2019.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Though none appears to prosecute the Petition filed in public interest, we have perused the pleadings and the documents relied in support of the Petition. G. R. dated 01.01.1996 annexed as Annexure ‘A’ to the Petition provides for an appraisal of the population in rural areas based on census data and ensure adequate health facilities to be made available for the residents of the State by the Public Health Department. Norms have been prescribed in the G.R. as to what should be an infrastructure available keeping in view the population.

¶10

As per the Petition, the population of Sangli district was 22,71,061. As per last census there is only one Civil Hospital at the District Head Quarter. The residents of village Ped detailed in paragraph 5 of the Petition through Grampanchayat have decided to

¶11

1/2

¶12

(13) PIL 98-19

¶13

provide land in Gat No. 1181 of village Ped, Taluka Tasgaon, DistrictSangli and on 06.10.2015 have made a representation to the Health Department of the State to augment medical facilities in District Sangli and preferably on the land proposed to be made available for construction of a Medical Centre. The grievance is that the representation dated 06.10.2015 has not been considered by the Secretary, Public Health Department, Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli and the Deputy Director of the Health Services, District Kolhapur.

¶14

We dispose of the Public Interest Petition directing the Secretary, Public Health Department, State of Maharashtra to treat the Public Interest Petition as a representation to him and based upon the G. R. dated 01.01.1996 pass appropriate orders. If the decision is that medical facilities have to be augmented in District Sangli, the Secretary, Public Health Department would co-ordinate with the Secretary, Finance so that the budgetary allocation could be made for the ensuing financial year starting from 01.04.2020.

¶15

[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]

¶16

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶17

2/2

Dattatray Tatoba Shenadge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Public Health Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatray Tatoba Shenadge v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Public Health Department 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

Jitendra Shivaji Shinde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baburao Rambhau Sapkal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Amar Asaram Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Mushiroddin Mohd. Gausoddin Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vanashakti, a Public Trust and Anr. Vs Union of India Thru the Secretary, Ministry of Environment , Forests and Climate Change, and Ors.

Jalindar Namdev Barve Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Arun Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Water and Soil Conservation Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Sachin Arun Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Water and Soil Conservation Dept. and Ors.

Joaquim Sebastian D'Costa Vs Union Oif India and 2 Ors.

Shri. Pandurang Abhimanyu Patil and Ors. Vs Shri. Sitaram S/O. Janardhan Kunte, the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Priyanka Madhukar Desle Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prasad J Satam Vs Vijay a Gosrani and 31 Ors.

Prasad J Satam Vs Vijay a Gosrani and 31 Ors.

Rachandra Gena Devkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Ors.