Case Law Details
The present appellant issued notice under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 on the ground that in the residential premises, the respondent plaintiff is running a medical dispensary without permission as such should discontinue the said unauthorised use i.e. medical dispensary. The respondent plaintiff filed a suit before the trial court challenging the said notice seeking relief of declaration that the act of defendant No.1 objecting the use of the part of the premises for running medical dispensary is illegal, null and void and also sought injunction restraining the defendant from executing the same. The trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
Mrs. Joglekar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff, in a residential premises, is running her medical dispensary and the same is not permissible without prior permission. According to the learned counsel, though Regulation 51(iv) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (D. C. Regulations) permits the incidental use of residential premises for running a medical dispensary, still the same has to be after prior permission of the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the court below has not properly appreciated the provision in this regard.
Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that there is no provision which requires permission of the appellant to run a medical dispensary in a part of the residential premises. The plaintiff is running her medical dispensary in one small room and the rest of the part of the room is being used as a residential premises. The said room is not exceeding 180 sq.ft. Indoor patients are not admitted.
It is not in dispute that Flat No.A2 is the residential premise of the plaintiff (i.e. in R1 zone). The only dispute is about the plaintiff running her medical dispensary in one room in the said flat being used for residential purpose. The court, on appreciation of evidence has
found that whole flat is used for residential purpose and only a small area less than 30 sq. mtr. is being used for running medical dispensary.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
I have day care clinic in hug for last 30 years.I am only doctor running clinic.clinic occupied 3 flat of 2bhk
Out of 4.is hon.high court has given disision in motwani case’clinic run by doctor himself is professional activities not to be treated as commercial activity.& act of bmc is null&void.so question is can bmc charge commercial property tax? Whether change of user is required?
Dr shenoy 9819678727shenoydoctor&gmail.com
my post is no duplicate if you read the contents if you really know what is a duplicate comment, what poor english knowledge today in India!
In your flat owned by you you have all rights under fundamental rights under under Art 301 after Art 31 abridged by the so called governments. After all from the ancient days, and British too continued when so under your great regional planning also there is no restriction whatsoever except under immoral trafficking but in those days Concubines lived without any restrictions as they were also respected community since they had live in relations now legalized.
Even Gujarat has concubines are legally recognized since quite long even before passing of living in relationship Act.
here medical facilities are needed today everywhere and even restriction of medical clinics is indeed a boon and in fact government need to give concessional property tax to such medical professions as their service to community is indeed a great service by medical professionals; further today government cannot provide proper full time jobs for medical professionals though they are far less in number to serve the community;
further one need to realize CIDCO allowed consultancies in the flat allotted in New Bombay/mumbai, when so what is the great idea of municipality .
Honorable HC rightly removed the municipal corporations cannot interfere in the flats or rooms running a clinic in part of the room say 50% of the area can be used for consulting work, even Advocates/mgmt consultants etc like CAs/CWAs;
it is time for courts to use doctrine of severability to strike down if there are such statutes any where restricting consultancies, like even in rental , leave and license premises, that way social purposes can be served without restriction, yes control sanitation meaningfully but if municipality fails in public health duties municipalities need to be fined in exemplary manner as public health is vital, municipalities were founded to maintain public health sanitation but today no municipality duly attends public health related sanitation besides roads as almost all roads are with pot holes and a lot of citizens besides disabled and senior citizens are killed by speeding vehicles on such unlivable roads.
courts need to be harsh on municipalities is my view, had i been a high court judge i would have fined municipalities in a most exemplary way to protect the rights under Art 19(1)(a) r/w Art 21 r/w Art 38 r/w 39 r/w Art 14.
CORRECT DECISION BY HON HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. BESIDES ONE NEED TO NOTE JOB CREATION IS BY ONE’S OWN SELF AND GOVERNMENT DID GIVE ANY REASONABLE JOBS WHEN SO EVEN REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING ACTS CANNOT INTRODUCE ANY RESTRICTION IN FUTURE TOO, AFTER ALL ONE SPENDS FORTUNE IN SOME PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND IF YOU CLAMP HIM OR HER BY SO CALLED REGULATIONS YOU ARE GAGGING THE PERSON TO DEATH. ART 19(1)(A) R/W ART 21 ASSURES ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. SEE HOW DR B R AMBEDKAR DID INTRODUCE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS LIKE A MAGNA CARTA OR BILL OF RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AS HE FEARED THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ONE DAY GAG THE VERY VOTERS BY GOVERNMENT SO CALLED REGULATIONS…HON CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS NEED TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEWS… ANY ONE BADLY AFFECTED BY GOVERNMENT CAN FILE WRITS UNDER ART 226 AS IT IS A SWEEPING ARTICLE EVEN BETTER THAN ART 32!