D. Raju Gowda vs The Commissioner/Director Department of Health and Family Welfare and Others

Mohan Shantanagoudar

Petitioner has sought for quashing the resolution at Annexure-A, dated 9.4.2012 passed by Arogya Raksha Samithi of Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura, bye which respondent No.8 is permitted to continue to run Nandini Milk Booth 9n the Campus of Government Hospital, Kanakapura Town, Ramanagara District. The records reveal that an order came to be passed in favour of respondent No.8 as per Annexure-R4, dated 26.3.2010 in respect of running the Milk Booth in the Compound of Government Hospital, M.G.Road, Kanakapura. Nandini Booth is having measurement of 12''x15''. As per the said order, respondent No.8 started running Nandini Milk Booth. Prior to authorisation of Milk Booth in favour of respondent No.8, petitioner was granted authorisation of running another Milk Booth situated at M.G.Ftoad, Kanakapura. However, the said Milk Booth was demolished for the purpose of widening the said mad. Taluk Panchayat decided to shift the Milk Booth to the Compound of the Government Hospital, Kanakapura. Consequently, Milk Booth was established in the Compound of the Government Hospital. As aforementioned, respondent No.8 has been running the said Milk Booth since the order dated 26.3.2010. The said order dated 26.3,2010 was questioned by the petitioner before this Court in WP.No.2716/2011. The writ petition came to be allowed on 17.2.2012 with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the application of the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 herein for running the Milk Book in question, on merits and in accordance with law. After consideration, the impugned resolution is passed as per Annexure-A by Arogya Raksha Samithi of Kanakapura Taluk Panchayat, Kanakapura continuing the grant in favour of respondent No.8.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned resolution is passed on extraneous considerations. So also the authorities have riot taken into consideration the fact treat the petitioner is a displaced person as the Government Hospital Campus being run by him is demolished and it was decided to be shifted to the Government Hospital Campus.

It is argued on behalf of respondent No.8 that the resolution is passed by the concerned authority as per law taking into consideration various factors, including the fact that respondent No.8 has paid the rent and is running the Milk Booth. Learned Counsel for respondent No.8 draws the attention of the Court to paragraph-3 of the resolution that the petitioner is selling milk packets at M.G. Road and therefore he is not an unemployed person. He denies the contention of the petitioner that the resolution passed is politically motivated.

Learned Government Advocate submits that the Medical Officer of the Government Hospital, Kanakapura, has decided to stop running of MR Booth in the hospital campus for the present and that the applications of both the parties will be considered together once again.

The impugned resolution reveals that the petitioner belongs to III-A Category, whereas respondent Na,8 belongs to II-A Category. Petitioner was a Municipal Councilor of Kanakapura from 1996- 2001; the income of the petitioner as well as respondent No.8 is Rs.10,000/- per annum; the photographs and other records produced by respondent No.8 reveal that the petitioner is selling the milk packets at M.G. Road and that therefore he is not an unemployed person; since the petitioner is not accorded any permission to run the Milk Booth situated at Government Hosb;tal Campus, Kanakapura, respondent No.8 should be allowed to continue to run the Milk Booth, particularly when respondent No.8 has raised loans for running the said Milk Booth and paying the rents regularly.

From the resolution, it is prima facie clear that the same is passed on merits and independently. The Committee has considered all the relevant aspects and has come to the conclusion that the 8th respondent should run the Milk Booth. It is no doubt true that the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution passed by the Committee in favour of the 8th respondent, but the Court does not find any illegality in the said resolution. It is also no doubt true that the petitioner was running the Milk Booth situated elsewhere and the said Milk Booth came to be closed because of widening of the road. It cannot be said that if the authorization is granted in favour of the respondent No.8, the same should continue for ever. The petitioner may also get the authorization of another Milk Booth, if such Milk Booth is established by the concerned Authority. The interim order granted by this Court is misunderstood by the authority and consequently running of Milk Booth itself is stopped. 5y the said process, the public at large will suffer. Since the Milk Booth is situated in the Compound of Government Hospital, the same shall continue to run, for the benefit of visitors of hospital including the patients.

As the impugned resolution is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.