LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, May 7, 2012

NOIDA That banking or nursing homes or any other commercial activity is not permitted in Sector 19 and for that matter, in any sector, in the development area earmarked for “residential use”.The NOIDA Master Plan, 2031, in Chapter 7, deals with Use Zones and Use Premises Designated. Under Serial No.87 of Chapter 7.30, while referring to Clause 5.22, it has been stated that a premises having medical facilities for indoor and outdoor patients having upto 30 beds is a nursing home and would be managed by a doctor on commercial basis. A clinic is stated to be a premises with facilities for treatment of outdoor patients by a doctor. In case of a polyclinic, it shall be managed by a group of doctors.no doctor would be permitted to run a polyclinic or a nursing home in the garb of a clinic. Therefore, the question of keeping the patients in the clinic overnight would not arise. The purpose of permitting a clinic is strictly in accordance with the directions of this court as already issued as well as the bye-laws. The doctors will be permitted to run a clinic to provide personal service to the outdoor patients and nothing more. The doctors would be permitted to conduct professional practice, by the resident doctor alone, within the scope of the directions already issued by this court. 10. We have heard the applicants, at length. There is no occasion for this court to review/alter its judgment dated 5/12/2011 and further order dated 23/1/2012. Consequently, the applications for intervention and impleadment do not survive.


                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             I.A. No. 4 OF 2012
                                     IN
                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10535  OF 2011

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA & Anr.                            …          Appellants

           Versus

Mange Ram Sharma (D) through
LRs. & Anr.                             …          Respondents

            And

Dr. Anupama Bisaria & Ors.        …          Applicants

                                 ALONG WITH

                             I.A. No. 5 OF 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.10535 OF 2011


Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA & Anr.                            …          Appellants

           Versus

Mange Ram Sharma (D) through
LRs. & Anr.                             …          Respondents

            And

Dr. A.C. Bisaria & Ors.                 …          Applicants

                                 ALONG WITH

                              I.A. No.6 OF 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.10535 OF 2011


Chairman & Chief Executive Officer,
NOIDA & Anr.                            …          Appellants

           Versus

Mange Ram Sharma (D) through
LRs. & Anr.                             …          Respondents

            And

M/s. Shivalik Medical Centre
P. Limited through its Director,
Dr. Ravi Mohta. & Ors.            …          Applicants

                                 ALONG WITH

                             I.A. No. 48 of 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6962 OF 2005


R.K. Mittal & Ors.                …          Appellants

                 Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.              …          Respondents

                 And

Dr. Birendra Kumar
Tripathi & Anr.                   …          Applicants


                                 ALONG WITH

                             I.A. No. 50 of 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6962 OF 2005


R.K. Mittal & Ors.                …          Appellants

                 Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.              …          Respondents

                 And

Dr. Rashmi Gupta & Ors.           …          Applicants

                                 ALONG WITH

                             I.A. No. 53 of 2012
                                     IN
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6962 OF 2005


R.K. Mittal & Ors.                …          Appellants

                 Versus

State of U.P. & Ors.              …          Respondents

                 And

Dr. Atul Kaushik & Anr.           …          Applicants


                                    ORDER





1.    By judgment and order dated 5/12/2011, this Court  disposed  of  Civil
Appeal No.10535 of 2011 and issued following directions:



      “(1)  That banking or nursing homes or any other  commercial  activity
           is not permitted in Sector  19  and  for  that  matter,  in  any
           sector, in the development area earmarked for “residential use”.




      (2)   That the 21 banks and the nursing homes, which are operating  in
           Sector 19 or any other residential  sector,  shall  close  their
           activity  forthwith,  stop  misuse  and  put  the  premises   to
           residential use alone,  within  two  months  from  the  date  of
           pronouncement of this judgment.




      (3)   That lessees of the plots shall ensure that the occupant  banks,
           nursing homes, companies or persons carrying on  any  commercial
           activity in the residential sector should stop such activity and
           shift the same  to  the  appropriate  sectors  i.e.  commercial,
           commercial  pockets   in   industrial/institutional   area   and
           specified pockets for  commercial  use  within  the  residential
           sector, strictly earmarked for that activity in the  development
           plan, the Regulations and provisions of the Act.
      [pic]
      (4)   That the Development Authority shall consider  the  request  for
           allotment of alternative spaces to the  banks  and  the  persons
           carrying on  other  commercial  activities,  with  priority  and
           expeditiousness.


      (5)   That the doctors, lawyers and architects can use 30% of the area
           on the ground floor in their premises in residential sector  for
           running their clinics/offices.


      (6)   That for such use, the lawyers, architects and doctors shall  be
           liable  to  pay  such  charges  as  may  be  determined  by  the
           Development Authority in accordance with law and after  granting
           an opportunity of being heard. The affected parties would be  at
           liberty to raise objections  before  the  Development  Authority
           that no charges are payable for such users as  per  the  law  in
           force.


      (7)   In the event the lessee  or  the  occupant  fails  to  stop  the
           offending activity and/or shift to alternate premises within the
           time granted in this judgment, the Development  Authority  shall
           seal the premises and proceed to cancel the lease  deed  without
           any further delay, where it has not already cancelled the  lease
           deed.


      (8)   Wherever the Development Authority has already passed the orders
           canceling the lease deeds, such orders shall be kept in abeyance
           for a period of two months from today. In the event  the  misuse
           is not stopped within a period of two months in  terms  of  this
           judgment, then besides sealing of the premises, these orders  of
           cancellation shall stand automatically revived  and  would  come
           into force without further reference to any court. In the  event
           the misuse is completely stopped in  all  respects,  the  orders
           passed by the authorities shall stand quashed and  the  property
           would stand restored to the lessees.


      (9)   These orders shall apply  to  all  cases,  where  the  order  of
           termination  of  lease  has  been  passed  by  the   Development
           Authority irrespective of whether  the  same  has  been  quashed
           and/or writs of the lessees dismissed by any court of  competent
           jurisdiction and even if such judgment is in appeal before  this
           Court.


      (10)  The orders in terms of this  judgment  shall  be  passed  by  an
           officer not below the rank of Commissioner. This order shall  be
           passed after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard
           by such  officer.  This  direction  shall  relate  only  to  the
           determination of charges, if  any,  payable  by  the  lessee  or
           occupant for the period when the commercial activity  was  being
           carried on in the premises in question.”


2.    On 23/1/2012, it was pointed out to us that 30% of  the  ground  floor
area permitted to be used under Direction (5) above is contrary to the  bye-
laws and master plan of NOIDA. It was urged before us  that  the  expression
‘ground floor’ used in the same clause  may  be  clarified  as  ‘any  floor’
because somebody may be having a  two-storeyed  house  and  may  himself  be
living  on  the  first  floor  only.   In  the  circumstances,  we  modified
Direction (5) quoted above and clarified that 25% of the permissible FAR  is
allowed to be used for their professional purposes by doctors,  lawyers  and
architects.  We also modified paragraphs  54  and  55  of  our  judgment  as
follows:


      “That the doctors, lawyers and architects can use 25 per cent  of  the
      permissible FAR of any floor in  their  premises  in  the  residential
      sector but only for running their personal office or  personal  clinic
      in its restricted sense as clarified in the judgment.”


3.    By the said order  dated  23/1/2012,  we  have  issued  the  following
further directions:

      “(i)  The NOIDA Authorities shall, within one week from today, issue a
           final notice to all the owners of the residences requiring  them
           to stop use of the premises for banking or any other  commercial
           activity and requiring them to shift from the residential areas.




      (ii)  The NOIDA Authority shall also issue  an  advertisement  stating
           therein the premises which can be offered to the  banks  as  per
           the policy of the NOIDA Authority.  This  policy  shall  clearly
           state the terms and conditions for allotment and the  manner  in
           which the allotment of the alternative site/land would  be  made
           to the banks and/or other commercial activities  in  appropriate
           sectors i.e. commercial, institutional or industrial-commercial.
             We  make  it  clear  that  such  policy  should  be  fair  and
           transparent.


      (iii) Within one week thereafter the banks and other persons  carrying
           on the commercial activities shall respond to the  advertisement
           given by the NOIDA Authority or the  circular  issued  by  them.
           Their allotment should be finalized immediately thereafter.


      (iv)  The entire process should be completed  within  six  weeks  from
           today.  After six weeks the NOIDA Authority shall be entitled to
           cancel the lease deed as well as take other permissible steps in
           accordance  with  law  to  prevent  commercial  users   in   the
           residential sectors.  We also  make  it  clear  that  the  NOIDA
           Authority will be at liberty to  consider  the  request  of  the
           nursing homes, clinics or other commercial  activities  carrying
           on the residential areas for allotment of an alternative site in
           accordance with its policy, if any.  The NOIDA  Authority  shall
           be entitled to fix present day rates or impose such other  terms
           and conditions as is considered appropriate by  them.   This  we
           leave to the discretion of the authorities concerned.


      (v)   Any branches that have opened in NOIDA after  the  pronouncement
           of the judgment of this Court shall not be entitled  to  any  of
           the benefits of the judgment and this order.


      (vi)  We make it clear that the directions  contained  in  this  order
           should be complied with by all concerned  and  within  the  time
           stipulated.  In the  event  of  default,  this  court  shall  be
           compelled to take proceedings under the Contempt of Courts  Act,
           1971 against the erring or defaulting officers/officials.”

4.    In the abovementioned applications, some applications have been  filed
by the doctors, who were running nursing  homes  in  the  residential  areas
with a prayer that  they  should  be  provided  alternate  land/premises  by
NOIDA, as it has been done in the case of banks as per the judgment of  this
court.  It is averred in  these  applications  that  Dr.  Rashmi  Gupta  and
others were running nursing homes in the residential  areas  with  differing
capacity, which have  now  been  closed.   They  are  prepared  to  pay  the
reasonable cost of land/premises which the NOIDA may now allot to  them  for
running their  nursing  homes.   There  are  other  applications  also  with
similar prayers.  As we had heard the applicants as  intervenors/impleaders,
their applications for intervention do not  survive  for  consideration  any
further.

5.    As far as formulation  of  Scheme  by  the  NOIDA  for  allotting  the
land/premises to such applicants is concerned, the stand  of  the  NOIDA  is
that it had already  taken  out  a  Scheme  especially  for  nursing  homes.
However, no applicant applied for allotment  of  such  land  and  thus,  the
NOIDA had not allotted any plot to the persons running nursing homes in  the
residential areas.

6.    The NOIDA Master Plan, 2031, in Chapter 7, deals with  Use  Zones  and
Use  Premises  Designated.   Under  Serial  No.87  of  Chapter  7.30,  while
referring to Clause 5.22, it has been stated that a premises having  medical
facilities for indoor and outdoor patients having upto 30 beds is a  nursing
home and would be managed by a doctor on  commercial  basis.   A  clinic  is
stated to be a premises with facilities for treatment  of  outdoor  patients
by a doctor.  In case of a polyclinic, it shall be managed  by  a  group  of
doctors.

7.    After hearing learned counsel appearing for different parties, we  are
of the view that NOIDA can be  directed  to  make  a  provision  under  this
policy  for  allotment  of  land/premises  to  nursing  homes   and   invite
applications for allotment of land  for  the  same.   The  NOIDA  has  given
precedence, under their previous Schemes for allotment, to  such  applicants
who are running nursing homes of more than 10 beds and  less  than  30  beds
and the same  would  apply  under  this  direction.   They  shall  be  given
land/premises at reasonable rates as may  be  determined  by  the  competent
authority in NOIDA.  This exercise of inviting  applications  and  allotting
such land/premises should be completed within three months from today.   The
applicants have stated that their nursing homes have  already  been  closed,
but we make it absolutely clear that  no  nursing  rome  shall  run  from  a
residential area henceforth.

8.    Coming to the applications made by individual doctors, we direct  that
individual doctors would not be entitled to any  benefit  under  the  Scheme
that the NODIA will declare under this order.  A clinic simplicitor  can  be
run by a doctor within such  area  as  already  specified,  of  his  or  her
residence.  This clinic would mean one as per  the  bye-laws.   To  put  the
matters beyond ambiguity, we clarify that the doctor  can  have  his  clinic
with a table, a bed to examine the patient and such facilities which may  be
necessary to provide first aid.  A dentist may have a dental  chair  in  his
clinic.  Under this head, neither a polyclinic nor a  nursing  home  can  be
run in the residential area.

9.    We also direct that no doctor would be permitted to run  a  polyclinic
or a nursing home in the garb  of  a  clinic.  Therefore,  the  question  of
keeping the patients in the clinic overnight would not arise.   The  purpose
of permitting a clinic is strictly in  accordance  with  the  directions  of
this court as already issued as well as the bye-laws.  The doctors  will  be
permitted to run a  clinic  to  provide  personal  service  to  the  outdoor
patients and nothing more.   The  doctors  would  be  permitted  to  conduct
professional practice, by the resident doctor alone,  within  the  scope  of
the directions already issued by this court.

10.   We have heard the applicants, at length.  There  is  no  occasion  for
this court to review/alter its judgment dated 5/12/2011  and  further  order
dated  23/1/2012.   Consequently,  the  applications  for  intervention  and
impleadment do not survive.

                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                    (SWATANTER KUMAR)


                                                       ……………………………………………..J.
                                         (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)
NEW DELHI,
MAY 4, 2012.
[pic]
-----------------------
11