-: 1 :- PIL-34/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 34 OF 2010. Sanjay Shirke Prathishthan. ..Petitioner. Versus Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Niranjan A. Mogre for the Petitioner. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP. Ms. S. Ajitkumar for BMC. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. Date : October 6, 2010. P. C. ( Per Ranjit More, J. ) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The petitioner is a trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 created for the purpose of providing free medical treatment to the poor and needy people. The petitioner has filed present petition in public interest for issuance of directions to the respondents to utilise the premises on plot City Survey No.18 at Banganga Road for the purpose of which it is reserved, namely, dispensary. The petitioner also prayed for directions to the respondents to hand over the said premises to them on care taker basis. The petitioner contends that plot bearing City srp -: 2 :- PIL-34/10 Survey No.18 at Banganga Road is reserved for dispensary in development plan of respondent no.1. In the year 1987, dispensary was started by respondent nos.1 to 3 with facilities such as dental clinic, X-ary facility, first aid treatment, primary health care, etc. The said facilities were continued till 2003, however, thereafter dispensary was suddenly closed down by respondents and health care centre came to be started. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the closure of the dispensary, poor persons living in the slums nearby are affected. The petitioner applied to respondent–Corporation seeking permission to adopt municipal dispensary on care taker basis. However, same was refused. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of assurance given by the respondents, the dispensary is not made functional. The inaction on the part of 1st respondent – Corporation has been causing great hardships to the poor people residing in the nearby vicinity. 2. On behalf of respondent no.1-Corporation, Dr. Naresh N. Karani, public health department employee of the Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply. He denied the fact that the petition is filed in public interest. It is asserted that the petitioner wants to run the premises on said plot on care-taker basis and since the petitioner was not given permission, the present petition is filed. It is submitted -: 3 :- PIL-34/10 that the premises on CTS No. 18 consists of four floors; ground floor was used for dispensary-cum-health activity and upper four floors were used as residential municipal quarters. It is further submitted that initially in the year 1987, the dispensary was started with the facilities of dental clinic, screening facility etc. The said facilities were continued upto 2003. However, subsequently the attendance of the patients had decreased due to construction of high rise buildings in the surrounding area; and therefore, this dispensary was closed down with effect from 1/4/2003. However, the health post activities were being carried out at the same place till the year 2009. It is also stated that building on CTS No.18 was declared unfit for human habitation and therefore required to be demolished and re-constructed and in these circumstances the health post activities were shifted in nearby Municipal School with effect from 28.6.2009 and the facilities mentioned above are provided by the health post to the local residents in the same way it was provided from the dispensary on CTS No. 18 in past. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply following statement is made : “I say that now the Executive Engineer (Planning and Development) has been asked to look after the work of demolition and reconstruction and there is provision of Rs.1.5 crores for the upgradation of public health institutions, -: 4 :- PIL-34/10 dispensaries and regional health care under the public health department.” . So far as the petitioner’s prayer for handing over possession of the premises to them on care taker basis is concerned, it is the stand of the respondent-Corporation that as per the policy of the Corporation it is mandatory that before giving any premises belonging to the Corporation to the private party for conducting health care activities, advertisement in newspapers inviting bids has to be given. Therefore, the request of the petitioner in this regard cannot be granted. 3. From the stand of the Municipal Corporation reflected in the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, it is clear that the dispensary was in operation in the preemies on CTS No.18 till the year 2003, and thereafter it was discontinued. However, the same premises was used as health post activities, which activities were continued upto 2009. After 2009, the health post activities were shifted to the nearby premises of municipal school. The poor and needy people residing in the vicinity are getting medical facilities there. The premises being in dilapidated condition are required to be demolished and re- constructed and for that purpose the respondent-Corporation has -: 5 :- PIL-34/10 made financial provision also. It is clear from the statement contained in affidavit-in-reply that provision of Rs.1.5 crore is made for reconstruction and upgradation of the public health institutions, dispensaries, etc. We hope and trust that the respondent-Corporation will carry out the work of demolition and re-construction of the building at the earliest, so as to provide medical facilities to the general public residing in the nearby vicinity. 4. Prayer of the petitioner to grant the premises on care taker basis to them cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the premises are required to be demolished and re-constructed and; secondly the policy of the Corporation does not permit giving the premises on private basis except by inviting bids through newspaper advertisement. In above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is disposed of in above terms. (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.) (R.V. More, J.)