The Allahabad High Court has stayed the demolition proceedings of Global Hospital, which came into the limelight due to transfusion of defective platelets, for six weeks.
The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Malati Devi.
The writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
“I. issue wit, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 passed by Respondent 4.
II. issue a wit, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos 2 to 4 not to seal the property of the petitioner.”
According to the petitioner, she purchased part of Plot measuring 179.2 square meters situated in Village Saha alias Pipalgaon, Tehsil Sadar, District Prayagraj by a registered sale deed dated 14.10.2009. She constructed a house over it.
Also Read: Rajasthan High Court dismisses plea with Rs 50,000 cost for misusing PIL jurisdiction of court
In the writ petition, it has been stated that under a rent agreement dated 10.02.2021, the petitioner has let out 18 rooms along with two shops to one Shyam Narayan at the rent of Rs 50,000/- per month for ten years, who is operating a hospital under the name and style of “Global Hospital”.
It has been further stated that on account of certain lapses by the aforesaid tenant, his hospital has been sealed by the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj.
It has been also stated that for the first time, the petitioner received a notice dated 19.10.2022 on 21.10.2022 from the Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA), in which it is mentioned that an order for demolition of the house in question was passed by the respondent no 2 on 11.01.2022, whereas neither any notice nor any order of demolition has been received by her.
It has been stated that the petitioner was residing on the floor above the hospital. It has been also stated that the construction over the land in question was made by the petitioner at the time when the area in question was not within the limits of the Prayagraj Development Authority and as such, there was no sanctioned map of the aforesaid property.
The petitioner stated that she was ready and willing for compounding illegal structure, if any, as per Section 32 of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, provided a reasonable opportunity is given to her.
Also Read: Vrindavan temple: Sevayats file application in Allahabad high court on PIL related to maintenance of Temple
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was willing to submit objection to the ex parte notice/ demolition order dated 11.01.2022 and shall also submit a map of the house in question before the respondent no 2 which may be examined by the respondent no 2 or the competent authority and if any construction of the house in question was found illegal or contrary to the bye-laws of the PDA, then the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity for compounding and if any portion is found not compoundable, then action may be taken by the PDA in accordance with law.
Counsel for the respondents states on instructions that the petitioner may submit objections raising all her grievances as may be available to her under law, along with a map of the house in question which shall be examined by the PDA and an appropriate order in accordance with law shall be passed.
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, the Court did not find any good reason to keep the writ petition pending and to call for a counter affidavit.
For all the reasons above, the Court disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file an objection within two weeks before the respondent no 2 raising all her grievances, along with a map of the house in question. In the event, such an objection along with map of the house in question is filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period then the respondent no 2 shall get it verified in terms of the bye-laws of PDA and shall examine the objection of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within next four weeks, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner including opportunity to file a compounding application in the event the construction is found compoundable in accordance with law. It is clarified that if any portion of the construction is found not compoundable, then the respondent no 2 shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
“For a period of six weeks or till the order as aforesaid is passed by the respondent no 2, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondents against the petitioner either pursuant to the demolition notice/order dated 11.01.2022 or pursuant to the impugned sealing notice dated 19.10.2022”, the Court ordered.