Delhi High Court
Deepak Memorial Hospital ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 16 July, 2008
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.4758/2007
DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.N.A.Sebastian,
Advocate
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Rajiv Bansal,
Advocate for DDA
Ms.Sunita Harish with
Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocates
for R-2 to 4
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to
see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ? No
JUDGMENT
% 16.07.2008
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as the respondents.
2. An employees' union has filed this petition in public
interest seeking a mandamus directing the first
respondent-Delhi Development Authority to cancel the
allotment in favour of Deepak Memorial Hospital, the
second respondent, for not complying with the terms of
allotment and to demolish all illegal structures and
modifications which were made by the respondents
without prior sanction of the appropriate authorities.
3. The second respondent was allotted a plot of land
measuring 4114 sq.yds by the DDA on a concessional rate
of Rs.2/- per sq.yds. It appears that a further plot of land
measuring 726 sq.yds also was allotted to respondent
No.2 for construction of staff quarters. The petitioner is
the employees' union of respondent No.3 hospital run by
respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner union is
that as per the terms of allotment, the second respondent
was to keep 25% of the beds for treatment of poor and
downtrodden, which has not been done. It is further
pointed out that Clause 8 of the terms of allotment of land
to respondent No.2 strictly prohibits transfer or sub-
leasing of the said land by the said respondent to any
other organization without prior permission of the DDA in
writing. It is stated that in flagrant violation of the above
clause, respondent No.2 transferred the property for a
substantial consideration to respondent No.4, who is
owner of a private hospital in NOIDA.
4. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.2&3 and No.4. The case of the
second respondent is that the terms of the allotment are
scrupulously followed and 25% of the total beds are kept
aside for treatment of poor and downtrodden. It is further
stated that as alleged no agreement is entered into
between second respondent and respondent No.4 for
transfer of land but it is merely an agreement entered into
between the said two respondents for operation and
management of respondent No.3 hospital, that too for a
specific period as prescribed in the agreement, which may
or may not be extended.
5. Learned counsel for the DDA has stated that the
DDA will look into the grievances set out in the petition
and hold an inquiry into the matter and, if necessary, take
appropriate decision after giving an opportunity to the
respondent No.2, respondent No.4 and the petitioner
union.
6. In view of this stand taken by the DDA, it is not
necessary for us to entertain this writ petition. It would be
open for the DDA to hold an inquiry in the matter and take
appropriate decision in accordance with law. Accordingly
this writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that we
are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 16, 2008 (JUDGE)
'v'
