Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEEP NURSING HOME & ORS versus UNION TERRITORY, CHD & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Deep Nursing Home & Ors v. Union Territory, Chd & Ors - CWP-20271-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5897 (24 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 20271 OF 2004 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 20271 OF 2004

Date of decision : July 31, 2006

* * * * *

Deep Nursing Home & others ............Petitioners Vs.

Union Territory, Chd & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. D.S Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. K.K Gupta, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioners before this Court are various nursing homes being run in residential houses in various sectors of the city of Chandigarh.

They are aggrieved against the action taken by the Chandigarh Administration whereby the petitioners are being required to close the aforesaid nursing homes and stop the misuse of the residential buildings.

We may notice that a policy decision dated January 4, 1999 has been taken by the Chandigarh Administration whereby on certain stipulations/conditions nursing homes running in residential buildings of plot size equal to 500 sq. yards or above located on V-4, V-5 and V-6 roads C.W.P NO. 20271 OF 2004 2

in various Sectors have been permitted to continue on payment of conversion charges/annual charges.

Sh. D.S Patwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- nursing homes, has at the outset stated that the petitioners are ready and willing to accept the conversion charges/annual charges but are primarily aggrieved against the classification whereby the only nursing homes running in buildings of plot size of 500 square yards or more have been allowed to continue whereas nursing homes running in buildings of less than 500 square yards have been required to shut. Sh. Patwalia states that petitioners would be ready and willing to pay such conversion charges which may be determined by the Administration but the policy decision taken by the Administration with regard to fixing of the plot size is totally arbitrary and unjustified under the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as some of the petitioners are running nursing homes for more than 20 years in the buildings in question.

In these circumstances, Sh. Patwalia states that the present petition be disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-Administration making the aforesaid grievance.

In view of the stand taken by the petitioners, but without commenting upon the merits of the controversy at all, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation, in a representative capacity, before the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-respondnet no.2, by appending all the relevant documents along with the said representation, within a period of 4 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the Chief Administrator, Union C.W.P NO. 20271 OF 2004 3

Territory, Chandigarh-respondent no.2, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to a representative of the petitioners and thereafter take such appropriate decision as may be deemed appropriate under the facts and circumstances, by passing a detailed and speaking order.

We further notice that vide order dated March 31, 2005, the parties were directed to maintain status quo till further orders.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have chosen to approach the authorities once again, we direct that the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate till the matter is finally decided by the Chief Administrator and for a period of 3 months thereafter.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 31, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.