Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

WADAKANCHERRY BLOCK MULTI

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


WADAKANCHERRY BLOCK MULTI-PURPOSE v. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH) - WP(C) No. 21974 of 2005(N) [2006] RD-KL 3623 (15 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21974 of 2005(N)

1. WADAKANCHERRY BLOCK MULTI-PURPOSE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH),
... Respondent

2. SUPERINTENDENT, THALAPPILY TALUK

3. HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE,

4. WADAKANCHERY BLOCK PANCHAYAT,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.GIRI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :15/12/2006

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P. (C) No. 21974 OF 2005 N ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dated this the 15th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is a co-operative Society. The 4th respondent Block Panchayat constructed a single room building in the premises of the Talappilly Taluk Government Hospital with the intention of housing a medical store there. It appears that the petitioner Society made an application before the Block Panchayat for permitting them to start the Neethi Medical Store in that building. By Ext.P1 resolution, the Panchayat resolved to permit the petitioner to start the Neethi Medical Store in that building. This is evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 also granted necessary approval for the petitioner to start the medical store. The petitioner is stated to have spent considerable amounts for carpentry work inside the building for making the building suitable for the medical store. According to him, the amounts spent by him comes to more than Rs.40,000/-. While so, the Superintendent of the Taluk Hospital issued Ext.P7 intimation to the petitioner since in respect of the Neethi Medical Store, disputes are pending between various organizations. It is apprehended that there is likelihood of agitations inside the hospital compound, which would be against the interest of the hospital itself. The petitioner was directed to stop further activities for starting the medical store. The 4th respondent WPC.21974/05 2 Panchayat also resolved by Ext.P8 resolution to keep further proceedings regarding start of the medical store pending till a fresh decision is taken after appropriate deliberations of the Panchayat committee. The petitioner originally challenged Exts.P7 and P8 in the writ petition. Subsequently, by interim order dated 5.10.05, this court directed the Panchayat to take a final decision in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat took a resolution, Ext.P10, wherein it was held that the earlier decision was taken without proper deliberations on the subject. Therefore, the earlier decision was cancelled and it was decided to allot the building only after the construction of the building is completely over, that too after inviting applications for allotment in accordance with law. The petitioner has amended the writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order also. Counter affidavits have been filed by the 4th respondent Panchayat, 1st respondent Medical Officer as also a statement on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It appears that all the respondents are now against the petitioner in allotting the building to the petitioner.

2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondents.

3. There are disputes as to whether the petitioner has been given possession of the building and as to whether the 4th respondent has given possession of the building to the Taluk Hospital etc. However, I do not think it necessary to go into all these questions WPC.21974/05 3 because admittedly before passing Exts.P1 and P2, there was no process of inviting applications from intending persons for allotment of the building in question. The building having been constructed by the Panchayat, which comes under the definition of State., their actions will have to be tested in the light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner does not have an exclusive right to get allotment of the building, without being selected after a process of inviting applications from the public for such allotment. Otherwise clearly the allotment of the building to the petitioner either by the Panchayat or by the DMO or by the Government would be totally violative of the constitutional mandate under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For that reason alone, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed in this writ petition. I further make it clear that none of the respondents or the Government shall take any steps to allot the building to anybody except through a process of inviting applications or tenders for allotment of the building. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. If the petitioner has any claim for damages against the Block Panchayat, it is for him to take recourse to appropriate remedies available to him under law, if he is so entitled to.

(S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE)

aks


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.