Shree Gajanan Maharaj Pratisthan v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

68.WPNo.36152021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3615 OF 2021 Shree Gajanan Maharaj Pratisthan ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Ugale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5/ State.

Ms. Shakuntala Santosh Wadekar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7.

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

DATED :

APRIL 6, 2022 P.C.

1.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press prayer clause (a) and (b), however, seeks direction against the State to decide his representation. That representation, it appears, is given at the time the second COVID-19 wave was at its peak. The scenario has now changed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would make a fresh representation for increased beds considering the increase in the local population. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in other places also the beds have been increased. The learned Counsel gives reference of Kolhapur and Jalna districts.

Gaikwad RD 1/2

68.WPNo.36152021.doc 2.

To increase the beds in the hospital is a matter of policy decision to be taken by the State. Various aspects are required to be considered by the State Authority while taking the decision. The Court cannot pass orders in that regard.

3.

The petitioner may represent/make application with the concerned Authority.

If such an application/ representation is made the Authority may look into the aspect and take a decision in accordance with law and policy expeditiously.

4.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2022.04.08 15:51:56 +0530 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Gaikwad RD 2/2