The Supreme Court on November 26, 2018, refused to stay the Delhi High Court verdict which quashed the city government circular giving preferential treatment to residents of the Capital at Guru Teg Bahadur (G.T.B.) Hospital.
A Bench of
Justice Madan B. Lokur and
Justice Deepak Gupta adjourned the case for further hearing after three weeks as the counsel for the Delhi government sought some time. The counsel appearing for the government sought a stay on the Delhi High Court’s October 12, 2018, verdict till the appeal was decided by the apex court. However, the Bench said, “What stay? People are suffering from various illnesses.”
On October 12, 2018, the Delhi High Court hearing a petition filed by NGO Social Jurist had quashed the circular issued on October 1, 2018, by the Delhi government regarding commencement of the pilot project to give preferential treatment to city residents at G.T.B. Hospital in east Delhi’s Dilshad Garden. The Delhi High Court said it led to creation of a “class within a class” of identically placed citizens which was “impermissible”. Moreover, the Delhi High Court also rejected the government’s defence that the decision was taken due to lack of facilities, saying that the State “cannot avoid or shirk away” from its constitutional obligations on account of financial constraints or lack of infrastructure and manpower. The proposal to give preference to the city residents at the hospital, one of the several hospitals runs by the Delhi government, was approved in August this year by
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Under the pilot project, Delhi residents were to get preference at registration counters, inpatient department, tests and medicine counter service at the hospital, and identification was to be done on the basis of the voter identity card.
Full Bench Order on Extension of Parole in Light of COVID19 Applies to Both Parole Granted by Jail and by the Court: Delhi HC [READ ORDER]
Judiciary
Oct 19, 2020
Rocky Das
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
2 Shares
A plea has been made by a prisoner for seeking an extension on his ongoing parole which was granted by the jail authorities and not by the court. The petitioner focused light on orders by the full bench which states all the parole, interim bail, and furlough granted shall be extended with keeping in view of the current pandemic situation.Mr. Akshay Bhandari on behalf of the petitioner argued that if the extension is being granted by the jail administration and not by the court, the extension...
Applications instituted u/s 151 of CPC in order to seek court’s legal opinion are misconstrued: Delhi HC
Judiciary
Oct 13, 2020
Arundhuti Deshmukh
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
23 Shares
The Delhi High Court recently made an explicit clarification that applications instituted under Section 151 of the CPC (Civil Procedure Code),1908 for the want of legal interpretation of the Court are misinterpreted. The Court held the same in the light of the sale deed, the copy of which was to be filed before the Court. The Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Asha Menon further advised the Petitioner that he's free to seek the opinion of Justice Endlaw after he...
206 Views
![Plea Challenging Commercial Property Tax onLawyers’ Offices to be Heard by HC [READ PETITION]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_4069_delhi.jpeg)
![Criminal Appeal Cases to be Heard Physically from 1st October: Bombay HC [READ NOTICE]](https://lawstreet.co/secure/uploads/2020/10/lj_7123_bombay.jpeg)
Facebook Comments