Para Medical Staff Welfare ... vs North Delhi Municipal ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 6521 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) NO. 3082/2015

       PARA MEDICAL STAFF WELFARE
       ASSOCIATION OF MCD                           ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. B.N. Sarangi, Adv.

                                Versus

    NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (NDMC)
    & ORS                                      ..... Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Monika Arora, Adv. for R-1 to 3.
                            Mr. R.K. Yadav, Adv. for R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                          ORDER

% 02.09.2015

1. The petition seeks mandamus to the respondents, (i) North Delhi

Municipal Corporation (NrDMC); (ii) Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao

Hospital; (iii) Assistant Labour Welfare Officer, NrDMC; and, (iv) Govt. of

NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to grant recognition to the petitioner so that the

petitioner can smoothly operate for the welfare of its members and so that

the rights of the members of the petitioner and the patients visiting the Hindu

Rao Hospital are not curtailed. A direction is also sought to the respondent

No.2 Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital to recall the order dated

30th April, 2013 cancelling the allotment of an office room allotted to the

petitioner vide another office order of the same date i.e. 30th April, 2013.

2. Notice of the petition was issued and was accepted by the counsel for

the respondent No.1 NrDMC appearing on advance notice. Though the

petitioner did not take steps for service of the notice on the respondents

No.2&3 but finding that respondent No.2 Medical Superintendent, Hindu

Rao Hospital is also to be represented by the respondent No.1 NrDMC which

is monitoring and operating the said Hospital and the respondent No.3

Assistant Labour Welfare Officer, NrDMC, also is to be represented by the

counsel for the respondent No.1 NrDMC and further finding that the

respondent No.4 GNCTD has no role in the matter, the counsels have been

heard.

3. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC has drawn

attention to pages 54, 58 and 151 of the paper book.

4. Page 54 is an office order dated 30th April, 2013 of the respondent

No.2 Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital allotting a room, situated

between "Hospital Employees Union" and "New Doctors duty room" to the

"Association of Para Medical Technical Staff Welfare Association". The

counsel for the petitioner on enquiry states that erroneously, in the

memorandum of parties, the name of the petitioner has been mentioned as

"Para Medical Staff Welfare Association" though the name of the petitioner,

as borne out from the Certificate of Registration also, is "Para Medical

Technical Staff Welfare Association". It is thus contended that it was the

petitioner which was allotted the said room.

5. Page 58 is another office order dated 30 th April, 2013 of the

respondent No.2 Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital cancelling the

allotment of the room aforesaid to the petitioner "for the time being" upon

learning that the petitioner Association is not recognized / registered by

NrDMC.

6. Page 151 is another office notice dated 3rd October, 2013 of the

respondent No.2 Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital inter alia to

the effect that the petitioner, subject to handing over peaceful possession of

the room earlier allotted and allotment of which was cancelled and subject to

withdrawing civil suit filed by the petitioner in this regard, is eligible for

recognition as an association by the NrDMC / Hindu Rao Hospital.

7. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC thus states that

subject to the petitioner withdrawing the civil suit filed by it with respect to

the said room and subject to the petitioner handing over possession of the

room, the NrDMC is willing to consider granting / recognition of the

petitioner Association.

8. The counsel for the petitioner states that civil suit being Suit

No.686/2014 bearing Unique ID Number:02401C0356222013 of the Court

of Sh. Kishore Kumar, Civil Judge-12 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

had already been decreed on 30th July, 2015. A copy of the judgment in the

said suit is handed over in the Court and is taken on record. A perusal

thereof shows that the Medical Superintendent, Hindu Rao Hospital

impleaded as the defendant herein has been restrained by a decree of

permanent injunction from dispossessing the petitioner from the room in

question, without following the due process of law.

9. The counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC on enquiry states

that though in the office noting dated 3rd October, 2013 supra, a condition

was imposed on the petitioner to deliver back the possession of the room but

upon the petitioner being recognized, would be eligible for allotment of a

room.

10. In the aforesaid scenario, the controversy is in a narrow compass.

11. Though the respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC had earlier allotted room

aforesaid to the petitioner but cancelled the said allotment upon realising that

the petitioner is not a recognised Association. The respondents No.1 to 3

NrDMC have since found the petitioner Association eligible for recognition.

However, now, the failure of the petitioner Association to restore possession

of the room, allotment of which was cancelled and pendency of litigation

initiated by the petitioner in this regard, are coming in the way of the said

recognition. The respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC also admits that the

petitioner Association, post recognition, would be eligible for allotment of a

room.

12. While the petitioner wants first to be recognised and allotment of

room aforesaid in its favour to be regularised, the respondents No.1 to 3

NrDMC want the petitioner to first surrender the room and then have itself

recognised and again seek allotment of room.

13. Such issues ought not to be allowed to clog the judicial system. The

powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India enable

this Court to instantly resolve such issues.

14. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, with the following directions:

(I) The petitioner to, within two weeks hereof, make an application

to the respondents No.1 to 3 NrDMC or to such of them as may be

required to be made, seeking recognition.

(II) Subject to the petitioner fulfilling all the formalities /

parameters required to be completed therefor, the respondents No.1 to

3 NrDMC shall, within one month of receipt of application, either

grant recognition to the petitioner Association or if do not find the

petitioner entitled to recognition, reject the application giving reasons

therefor.

(III) In the event of the petitioner being recognized, the petitioner

shall be entitled to immediately apply for regularization of the

allotment of the room already in its possession in favour of the

petitioner and the said request shall also be considered within a

reasonable time.

(IV) If the petitioner is not recognised, or though recognised, not

allotted any room, the petitioner would have remedies, if any,

available in law thereagainst.

(V) Similarly, if the petitioner is not recognised, or though

recognised, not allotted the room aforesaid, the respondents shall be

entitled to take back the possession of the room by following the due

process of law.

(VI) The aforesaid would not come in the way of the petitioner being

allotted any other room / space instead of the room now in its

possession.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 bs