Status/judgment of CWP filed before Supreme court of India
vinod bansal
(Querist) 19 March 2010
This query is : Resolved
R/Members
Civil Writy Petition No. 552/1997 Titled Indian Medical Association vs State of Haryana.This case was called for hearing on 17/07/98 ,this interim order is available with me,this case is related to running hospital in residential colonies,i want to know when this case was decided or presenty what is status of this case,i tried on official website of supreme court but proved futile,how i can get copy of judgment or status of this case.Kindly help.Thanx
Vinod Bansal Advocate Jind Haryana
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Expert) 19 March 2010
W.P(C)No. 552 OF 1997
ITEM No.101 Court No. 10 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition (C) No. 552 of 1997
INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent (s)
(With appln.(s) for directions, interventions and office report)
Date : 10/09/2003 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
For Appellant (s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Walia,Adv.
Mr. S. Muralidhar,Adv.
For Respondent (s) Mr. J.B. Mudgil,Adv.
for Ms. Kavita Wadia,Adv. (N/P)
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain,Adv.
Mr. Manish Mohan,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Singh,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kumar Chaudhary,Adv.
Mr. Bharat Singh,Adv.
Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad,Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.
Mr. Narinder Verma,Adv.
Mr. Vishal Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Anil Mittal,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the parties from 10.35 a.m. to 12.05 p.m.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, no orders are necessary on the application for intervention.
[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Shelly Sengupta ]
Court Master Court Master
[Signed order is placed on the file]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 552 OF 1997
Indian Medical Association ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition stating that the Members of the petitioner-Association at Faridabad who have received notices under Section 17(3)/17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short `the Act') shall file replies/representations to the said notices within a given time; the competent authority may dispose of such replies/representations and pass appropriate orders in each individual case on merits considering the facts and circumstances and contentions raised therein; in some cases, replies were given and the competent authority or the appellate authority, as the case may be, have already passed stereo typed order in a cyclostyled form and those orders may be ignored and such of the Members also may be given opportunity to give fresh replies/representations to the notices issued under Section 17(3)/17(4) of the Act having regard to subsequent developments that have taken place such as change in the policy of providing sites in the residential area for the purpose of constructing nursing homes.
Under these circumstances, while permitting the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition, we permit Members of the petitioner-Association at Faridabad to give replies/representations to the notices under Section 17(3)/17(4) of the Act including those Members in whose cases orders have already been passed pursuant to the notices issued, within a period of six weeks from today and the competent authority shall consider replies/representations within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the replies/representations considering each individual case on the facts and circumstances in the light of the contentions raised and having due regard to public interest and interest of the residents in the concerned sector and pass orders in accordance with law without taking into consideration the orders made earlier in some cases. Until the replies/ representations are disposed of, the status quo existing in relation to the buildings and their use by the Members of the Association at Faridabad shall be maintained.
Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn subject to what is stated above. All the contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent authority. No costs.
......................J.
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL]
......................J.
[D.M.DHARMDHIKARI ]
New Delhi;
September 10, 2003.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 19 March 2010
I think your quarry has very well been addressed by parveen and now it should be treated as resolved.
vinod bansal
(Querist) 19 March 2010
will you plz disclose source(website name) from where you downloaded this judgment and Thanx a lot Sir.
