AHMEDABAD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ahmedabad Medical Association and 44 other petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the impugned notices (at Annexure P/1 Collectively) issued by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner nos. 2 to 45 and the other members of the petitioner No. 1­Association. The petitioners have also challenged the action of the respondent No. 2 in sealing the hospitals of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and have sought further direction against the respondents to publish a reasonable time frame within which the applications in pursuance of the public notice dated 22.02.2021 could be made. To be precise, following prayers have been mainly sought in the present petition:

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1­ Association was formed over 100 years ago for espousing the cause of its members. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 45 are the members of the petitioner No. 1 ­Association and the Doctors professing medicine from their respective hospitals in the city of Ahmedabad. They have different areas of specialization and have vast experience in their respective fields. In the month of August, 2021, an unfortunate fire incident took place in the Shrey Hospital at Ahmedabad, which led to loss of eight innocent lives. A Public Interest Litigation being WPPIL No. 118 of 2020 came to be filed before this Court seeking various reliefs, in which the Division Bench passed various orders on 17.08.2020, 15.12.2020 and 26.02.2021 (Annexure P/3 Collectively). In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 issued a public notice on 22.02.2021 stating inter alia that under the prevalent laws, it is necessary to obtain the BU permission and Fire NOC before occupying any premises, and that those persons who do not have a BU permission and/or Fire NOC, may apply for the same, failing which appropriate action would be initiated against them. It is further the case of the petitioners that before the petitioners­ Doctors and other members of the petitioner No. 1 Association could assess their situation, collate all papers pertaining to their property and make necessary applications pursuant to the said public notice, the petitioners have been individually served with the Notices (Annexure P/1 Collectively) calling upon them to produce the BU permission and Fire NOC. It was stated in the said Notices that if they failed to produce the BU permission and the Fire NOC within three days, their Hospitals would be sealed. On the receipt of such Notices, the petitioners made individual representations to the various Zonal Offices of the respondent No. 2. However, in the meantime, the respondent No. 2 already partially sealed the hospital premises of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The other members of the petitioner No. 1 Association therefore apprehending that such an action of sealing would take place against them also, have filed the present petition. The petitioners have produced the Chart (Annexure P/6) depicting the position of the members of the petitioner No. 1 Association, in respect of the availability of the BU permission and Fire NOC of their premises.

(3.) The respondent No. 2­Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has filed the Affidavit­in­reply through the Town Development Officer challenging the very maintainability of the common and composite petition filed by the petitioners having different fact situations. Pressing into service the provisions contained in the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the GPMC Act") more particularly the provisions contained in Chapter XV, it has been stated that no person can occupy or permit to be occupied any building, or use or permit to be used the building or part thereof, until Building Use permission has been received from the Commissioner in that behalf. Since, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 45 did not have a valid BU permission as per the provisions of the GPMC Act, they cannot continue to occupy their respective premises in question. It is further contended that as per the provisions of the Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations (CGDCR) also continuation of the use and occupation by the petitioners in the building, which does not have a valid BU permission, is not permissible. Hence, vide the public notice dated 22.02.2021, issued in daily newspapers it was put to the notice of the Public that if Fire NOC and BU permission were not obtained, consequential legal steps would be initiated. Even the personal notices were issued to the erring hospitals and thereafter the premises were sealed as the concerned petitioners could not produce valid BU permission for the concerned premises. It is also contended that in some of the cases, the actions are taken by the respondent after one month of the issuance of the personal notices and therefore the contention about the hardships, etc. canvassed by the petitioners were ill founded.