Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nand Ram & Ors vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 7 May, 2019
Bench: Surya Kant, Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWP No.1631 of 2017
Date of Decision: 7.5.2019
____
Nand Ram & Ors. .....Petitioners.
.
Versus
State of H.P. and Ors.
...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
________________________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Anshul Attri, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Senior Additional Advocate
General.
__________________________________________________________________
Surya Kant, Chief Justice (oral)
Learned Senior Additional Advocate General states that site for expansion of hospital has already been identified and construction has commenced.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed, opposing shifting and upgradation of the hospital from 20 to 50 beds at Kandaghat. It appears to us that institution of the instant writ petition would not serve any purpose as expansion of hospital, surely, is an affirmative action on the part of the State to provide better health services to the general public and any opposition thereto cannot be treated as an action in public interest.
3. That apart, the respondents in their reply have stated that no further expansion is possible in and around the existing 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2019 22:00:43 :::HCHP...2...
structure. Respondents have further stated that there is no land .
available at the existing site of hospital, which can be extended at low cost. As per reply filed by the respondents, new proposed site for 50 bedded hospital is just 600-700 meters away from the existing structure.
4. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General while refuting the contention of Sh. Anshul Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner that at the proposed site, de-addiction Centre is being opened, categorically stated that as per instructions imparted to him, 50 bedded hospital would be constructed/opened on the proposed site.
5. Consequently, in view of the above, we see no reason to interfere in the aforesaid administrative decision of government authorities, which otherwise appears to be in public interest and as such, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Surya Kant),
Chief Justice
7th May, 2019 ( Sandeep Sharma ),
(manjit/shankar) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2019 22:00:43 :::HCHP