Disposed

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr. President, Dr. Sachin Sureshreao Pawade v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Deptt. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2021PIL/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL filed by a Medical Practitioner Society regarding the non-installation of surgical instruments at a Medical College, permitting the matter to be referred to the Secretary for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

The petition was issued to the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, to look into the issues and decide the course of action.

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

Rgd

0302pil2.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 2/2021.

¶6

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch Society. ... Petitioner. - VERSUS- 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents.

¶7

Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms.K.S. Joshi, I/c. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 3 FEBRUARY 2021.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶12

This petition is filed by a Medical Practitioner in the capacity as President of a Society.

¶13

Perusal of the Public Interest Litigation and annexures

Rgd

0302pil2.21

would indicate that there are various internal correspondence including cheques, between the Respondent No.4 Institution and Respondent No.2. Petitioner has not disclosed as to how the Petitioner had access to all the internal documents, especially the financial documents. We are not convinced about the credentials as the Petitioner, merely being a Medical Practitioner like any other in the city, would have easy access to such internal documents.

¶18

Be that as it may, the grievance of the Petitioner is that a surgical instrument is not being installed in the Respondent No.4 Medical College. The installation entails a procurement procedure, which will have financial connotations.

¶19

The Petitioner is permitted to forward this petition to the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Secretary, will look into the issues raised by the Petitioner and will decide the course of action as may be warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. We make it clear that we have not recognized any special locus of the Petitioner to demand any hearing and opportunity before the Secretary.

¶20

With these observations, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶21

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶22

(NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶23

Digitally signed Rakesh by Rakesh Dhuriya Date: 2021.02.10 Dhuriya 14:39:51 +0530

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr. President, Dr. Sachin Sureshreao Pawade v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Deptt. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaidyakiya Jan Jagruti Manch, Thr. President, Dr. Sachin Sureshreao Pawade v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Deptt. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai and Others

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

Dr. Govind Hariba Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Centre for Legislative Advocacyan Initiative by Sahayog Trust Thr. Founder Adv. a. S. Sarode and an Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Law and Judiciary Ministry, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Income Tax Bar Association, Nagpur Thr. President, Rajesh S/O. Vithaldas Loya Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and Another

Pratibha Shinde President Lok Sangharsh Morcha and Others Vs Principal Secretary Public Health Department and Others

Rakesh Chandrakant Bramhankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chichmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti, Nagpur Thr. Secretary Shri Prasad S/O Keshavrao Pimpale Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Irshad S/O Jabbar Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Public Works Department, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Shyamsundar S/O Shankarrao Shinde Vs the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, through Its Member Secretary, Bhandara

Kirtikumar Ramniklal Vora Vs the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Napgur and Others

S.B. and Company, Thr. Its Partner Barshi Ahemad S/O Mohd. Sharif Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Department of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Kavita D/O Haridas Chavam (Kavita W/O Raju Dahake)) Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection Dept. Mumbai and Others

Smt. Bindu W/O. Ratnadip Bansod Vs the Zilla Parishad, Bhandara Thr. Chief Executive Officer, and Another

Atharv Rajendra Narnaware Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, Thr. Member Sec., and Others