# Sri Ganga Charan Aryawardhan Hospital, Bareilly v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 288
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 33577 of 2022
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-ganga-charan-aryawardhan-hospital-bareilly-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48016
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - UP Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - Sections 14 (2)
& 16 Compounding of illegal construction
- Residential building was converted into
a hospital - Petitioner failed to comply
with
the
condition
of
the
authority
regarding
demolition
of
the
noncompoundable part - The petitioner has
no sanctioned plan for running nursing
home in its premises - Effect - Held, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to continue
using the building as a hospital in
violation of the existing law, throwing all
principles of town planning to winds and
least concerned with the safety and
security of even those who are availing
medical services in the hospital, being
illegally run from the building in question.
(Para 9, 13 and 22)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022) 12 ILRA 288
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No. 33577 of 2022

Sri Ganga Charan Aryawardhan Hospital,
Bareilly ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Ashok Kumar
Dwivedi, Sri Shashi Nandan (Sr. Counsel)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan

A. Civil Law - UP Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - Sections 14 (2)
& 16 Compounding of illegal construction
- Residential building was converted into
a hospital - Petitioner failed to comply
with
the
condition
of
the
authority
regarding
demolition
of
the
noncompoundable part - The petitioner has
no sanctioned plan for running nursing
home in its premises - Effect - Held, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to continue
using the building as a hospital in
violation of the existing law, throwing all
principles of town planning to winds and
least concerned with the safety and
security of even those who are availing
medical services in the hospital, being
illegally run from the building in question.
(Para 9, 13 and 22)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar
Gupta, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Counsel for the parties are
agreeable that the matter be heard and
decided at this stage itself without calling
for
affidavits
from
respondents.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is
being taken up for consideration.

2. Heard Shri Shashi Nandan, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Udayan
Nandan and Shri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Staterespondents, namely, respondent no. 1 and
4 are represented by learned Standing
Counsel.

BACKGROUND:

3. In the present writ petition, the
petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated
17.10.2022 passed by the Vice-Chairman of
Bareilly Development Authority1 rejecting
the proposal for compounding of the
nursing home of the petitioner. Further
under challenge are the orders/letters both
dated 22.10.2022 informing the petitioner,
respectively, that as per the approved
layout, on a residential plot, a nursing home
cannot
be
sanctioned,
therefore,
the
proposal for compounding of the nursing
home has been rejected by the ViceChairman on 17.10.2022, and, that within
15 days the admitted patients in the nursing
home be transferred to another nursing
home and the premises be vacated, failing
which, the premises of the nursing home
would be sealed. Further, mandamus has
been sought commanding the respondents
not to interfere in the peaceful running of
the nursing home in question and for
commanding respondents to decide the
application
of
the
petitioner
dated
3.10.2022 for change of land use.
12 All. Sri Ganga Charan Aryawardhan Hospital, Bareilly Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289

4. It is stated in the writ petition that
by means of a sale deed dated 12.5.1997,
House No. 35/2, Rampur Garden, Bareilly
was purchased by the Managing Director of
the petitioner for establishing a hospital. A
nursing home was constructed over the plot
in question and a certificate of registration
was obtained from the Chief Medical
Officer, Bareilly, in the year 2004. It is
stated that the nursing home has been
running continuously in the aforesaid
premises and was also issued a certificate
of renewal of medical establishment by the
office of the Chief Medical Officer,
Bareilly on 17.5.2022. It is stated that on
18.2.2020, the Executive Engineer of the
respondent
no.
2,
BDA,
issued
a
communication to the petitioner that the
constructions raised by the petitioner are
not in accordance with the building byelaws and, therefore, a total amount of Rs.
81,62,123/- is liable to be deposited by the
petitioner toward compounding of the
constructions in question. It is stated that
the demanded amount was deposited on
30.9.2022 by cheque and through cash.
Thereafter, by a communication dated
1.10.2022, the petitioner was directed to
shift the patients in the nursing home to
another hospital and vacate the nursing
home by 3.10.2022 failing which the
premises of the nursing home would be
sealed. The petitioner submitted a letter
dated 3.10.2022 along with an affidavit
seeking land use conversion of the
premises as per the guidelines and for that
purpose the petitioner deposited a sum of
Rs. 50 Lacs by cheque. It is stated that
without considering the application of the
petitioner for change of land use, the
aforesaid impugned orders/communications
dated 22.10.2022 were issued. It has been
stated that the order dated 17.10.2022
passed by the Vice-Chairman of the BDA
has not been served on the petitioner.
Copies of the minutes of the 82nd, 83rd and
84th meetings of the Board of the BDA
have been enclosed in an effort to
demonstrate that conversion of land usage
was permissible under the circumstances.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED
COUNSEL:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has strongly urged that the petitioner has
been running the nursing home for
approximately 20 years without any break,
which nursing home has been duly
registered by the Chief Medical Officer. It
is contended that the bonafide of the
petitioner is reflected from its compliance
of the letter dated 18.2.2020 issued by the
BDA demanding a sum of Rs. 81,62,123/-
for compounding of the constructions of
the nursing home but without looking into
this aspect of the matter and without
considering the application dated 3.10.2022
made by the petitioner for change of land
use, the impugned orders have been passed
which is a clear violation of principles of
natural justice. It is further contended that
given the resolution of the BDA made in its
83rd meeting, objections and suggestions
are necessary to be invited from persons
with respect to the proposed amendments
in the master plan. The petitioner, by his
application
dated
3.10.2022
showed
willingness to deposit the charges for
conversion of land use from residential to
hospital. The said application could only be
considered and decided by the State
Government in exercise of power under
Section 13 (3), but the Vice-Chairman,
BDA, has wrongly proceeded to reject the
said application. Lastly, it is contended that
the Rampur Garden Colony, Bareilly, in
which the nursing home is situated, is being
used for various commercial activities
including hospitals, shops and malls since a
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
long period of time and the area in question
is completely commercial in nature but the
BDA has singled out the petitioner by
issuing the impugned orders/letters.

6. Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel
appearing for the BDA has strongly
opposed the writ petition and has drawn
attention of the Court to the conditions
attached to the letter dated 18.2.2020 issued
by the Executive Engineer of BDA. It is
contended
that
the
very
fact
that
compounding application had been filed by
the petitioner in respect of sanctioned and
constructed residential building, reflects
that the nursing home was not sanctioned
by the BDA. Learned counsel has referred
to the letter dated 1.10.2022 of the BDA
sent to the Managing Director of the
petitioner informing him that the petitioner
had
failed
to
demolish
the
noncompoundable
part
of
the
building,
accordingly, the petitioner was directed to
shift its patients to another hospital by
3.10.2022. It is further stated that the
impugned letters dated 22.10.2022 clearly
reflect that as per the sanctioned layout of
Rampur Garden, no nursing homes can be
permitted on residential plots. It was,
therefore, by order dated 17.10.2022, the
Vice Chairman of the BDA had canceled
the proposal for compounding of the
constructions. Learned counsel has urged
that the reference to the additional
resolutions passed in the 83rd meeting of
the Board of the BDA refers to the
proposed master plan of 2031 and no
benefit of the same can accrue to the
petitioner.

ANALYSIS:

7. A perusal of the sale-deed dated
12.05.1997 reveals that the Managing
Director of the petitioner had purchased an
unfinished two storied residential building.
He
raised
further
constructions
and
converted the building into a hospital.
There is no evidence that the additional
constructions raised were according to any
sanctioned plan. The building is situated in
Rampur
Garden,
Bareilly,
which
is
residential area as per the master-plan. The
petitioner started using the building for
running a nursing home/hospital, without
any permission in this behalf from the
BDA. The aforesaid acts were in clear
violation of Sections 14 (2) and 16 of the
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
These provisions are reproduced below for
ready reference:-

"14 (2) After the coming into
operation of any of the plans in any
development area no development shall be
undertaken or carried out or continued in
that area unless such development is also in
accordance with such plans.

16. Uses of land and buildings in
contravention of plans- After the coming
into operation of any of the plans in a zone
no person shall use or permit to be used
any land or building in that zone otherwise
that in conformity with such plan :

Provided that it shall be lawful to
continue to use, upon such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed by byelaws made in that behalf, any land or
building for the purposes and to the extent
for and to which it is being used upon the
date on which such plan comes into force."

8. The petitioner was conscious of the
gross violations of provisions of law on its
part. It applied for compounding of the
illegal constructions. On 18.2.2020, the
compounding plan was sanctioned subject
to
various
conditions/
compliances.
Condition no.1 states that the petitioner was
12 All. Sri Ganga Charan Aryawardhan Hospital, Bareilly Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
illegally running a hospital in the building
constructed and sanctioned for residential
use. Therefore, the petitioner shall have to
convert the building to residential use and
submit an undertaking in shape of an
affidavit that in future it would only be
used for residential purposes. Condition
No.2 is that every floor of the building
would only be used for that purpose for
which the plan is sanctioned i.e. residential.
Condition No.11 states that as per the
compounding plan, the non-compoundable
part of the building would be demolished
within one month by the petitioner and an
affidavit will be filed in that regard. In case
of failure on part of the petitioner in getting
the demolition done on its own, the
demolition would be done by the BDA,
cost of which has to be borne by the
petitioner. Further, there was condition
No.12 that on violation of any of the
conditions,
the
map/plan
would
automatically stand cancelled.

9. The petitioner did not comply with
any of the above conditions. Neither noncompoundable part of the constructions
were demolished nor the building was put
to residential use. The petitioner continued
to use the building as a hospital. This
attracted
Condition
No.12
of
the
compounding order and the compounding
plan stood automatically cancelled. The
BDA, however, gave one more opportunity
to the petitioner to comply with the
conditions stipulated in the compounding
order. By letter dated 1.10.2022, it required
the petitioner to demolish the noncompoundable part of the building and put
the building to permissible usage and
submit an affidavit to the said effect, failing
which, the petitioner was warned that the
premises would be sealed and further
action taken in the matter in accordance
with law.

10. The petitioner, instead of
complying with the conditions stipulated in
the provisional compounding order dated
18.2.2020,
moved
fresh
applications
praying
(1)
for
permission
to
use
compoundable part of the building for
hospital purposes and showed willingness
to deposit conversion charges and (2) for
notice dated 1.10.2022 being cancelled.
The petitioner also claims to have tendered
to BDA a cheque of Rs.50 lakhs therefor.

11. The applications of the petitioner
were considered by the BDA. The prayers
made by the petitioner were found to be
impermissible as per the master-plan.
Accordingly, the request for compounding/
conversion to hospital use was rejected by
the Vice-Chairman, BDA on 17.10.2022
and it was communicated to the petitioner
by the competent authority, BDA vide its
letter dated 22.10.2022 which is as
follows:-

"पत्रांक/3251/का०ब०नव०प्रा०/2022-23

 नदिांक 22/10/22

डा० िवल नकशोर गुप्ता (प्रबन्ध निदेशक)

श्री गंगा चरण आयम वधमि अस्पताल,

नसनवल लाईन्स बरेली

निरस्तीकरण-पत्र

कृपया वाद सं०- 113/2019-20 (जोि-1
सेक्टर-3) से आप द्वारा िनसमग होम हेतु प्रस्तुत
शमि प्रस्ताव पर जॉचोपरान्त आपनि पायी गयी
नक 83वीं बोडम बैठक के अिुसार रामपुर बाग में
महायोजिा के कायामलय भू-उपयोग में केवल
कायामलय एवं सम्बन्धन्धत निया प्रभाव शुल्क लेते
हुये स्वीकृत नकये जा सकते है। बरेली
महोयोजिा-2001-2021 के अध्याय-6 के प्रस्तर6.1.5 के अिुसार रामपुर बाग, बरेली के स्वीकृत
ले-आउट के आवासीय प्लाट में िनसमग होम
स्वीकृत िहीं नकया जा सकता है। नजस कारण
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत िनसमग होम के शमि प्रस्ताव
उपाध्यक्ष
महोदय
के
अिुमोदि
नदिांक
17.10.2022 के द्वारा निरस्तर कर नदया गया है।

सक्षम प्रानधकारी

बरेली नवकास प्रानधकरण

 बरेली।

प्रनतनलनप- तदनदिांकः-

1. क्षेत्रीय सहायक/ अवर अनभयन्ता को
आवश्यक कायमवाही हेतु प्रेनित।

 सक्षम प्रानधकारी"

Translated, this letter states that after
inquiry, there is objection to the proposal
regarding compounding submitted by the
petitioner in respect of nursing home,
which is that, according to the 83rd
meeting of the Board, in Rampur Garden,
in the office land-use permitted under the
master plan, only office and related activity
can be sanctioned after accepting impact
fee. According to Chapter 6 paragraph 6.1.5
of Bareilly Master Plan 2001-2021, in the
approved layout of Rampur Garden,
Bareilly, on residential plots, nursing home
cannot be approved. For this reason the
compounding proposal for nursing home
submitted by the petitioner has been
rejected by means of the approval of the
Vice-Chairman dated 17.10.2022.

12.

The
impugned
order/letter
no.3252 dated 22.10.2022 reads as under:

"पत्रांक/3252/का०ब०नव०प्रा०/2022-23

नदिांक: 22/10/22

सेवा में,

डा० िवल नकशोर गुप्ता (प्रबन्ध निदेशक)

श्री गंगा चरण आयम वधमि अस्पताल,

गांधी उधाि के सामिे, प्लाट िं०-ए-2
रामपुर गाडमि,

बरेली।

नवियः- वाद सं०-113/2019-20 (जोि-1
सेक्टर-3) के संबंध में।

महोदय,

कृपया आपके द्वारा वाद सं०-
113/2019-20
(जोि-1
सेक्टर-3)
में
पूवम
आवेनदत आवासीय शमि प्रस्ताव के नवरूद्ध
संचानलत नकये जा रहे िनसमग होम को शमि
कराये जािे हेतु नदिांक 03.10.2022 को प्राथमिा
पत्र नदया गया था, नजसके संबंध में आपके शमि
प्रस्ताव को 83वीं बोडम बैठक के अिुसार रामपुर
बाग में महायोजिा के कायामलय भू-उपयोग में
केवल कायामलय एवं सम्बन्धन्धत निया प्रभाव
शुल्क लेते हुये स्वीकृत नकये जािे एवं बरेली
महायोजिा- 2001-2021 के अध्याय-6 के
प्रस्तर- 6.1.5 के अिुसार बाग, बरेली के स्वीकृत
ले-आउट के आवासीय प्लाट में िनसमग होम
स्वीकृत का प्रावधाि ि होिे के कारण आपके
द्वारा प्रस्तुत िनसमग होम के शमि प्रस्ताव को
उपाध्यक्ष
महोदय
के
अिुमोदि
नदिांक
17.10.2022 के द्वारा निरस्त नकया जा चुका है।

अतः उपरोक्त संदनभमत प्रकरण में
आपको निदेनशत नकया जाता है नक आप 15
नदि के अन्दर श्री गंगा चरण आयमवधमि
अस्पताल में भती समस्त मरीजो को अन्य नकसी
िनसमग होम में स्थािान्तररत करते हुये िनसमग होम
खाली करिा सुनिनित करें, अन्यथा उक्त िनसमग
होम पररसर को सील कर नदया जायेगा। नजसमें
मरीजो को होिे वाली परेशािी की समस्त
नजम्मेदारी आपकी होगी।

सक्षम प्रानधकारी

बरेली नवकास प्रानधकरण

 बरेली।

प्रनतनलनप- तदनदिांकः-

1. आयुक्त महोदय को सादर सूचिाथम
प्रेनित।

2. नजलानधकारी महोदय
को सादर
सूचिाथम प्रेनित।
12 All. Sri Ganga Charan Aryawardhan Hospital, Bareilly Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293

3. वररष्ठ पुनलस अधीक्षक, बरेली को सादर
सूचाथम प्रेनित।

4. सनचव महोदय को सूचिाथम प्रेनित।

5. मुख्य नचनकत्सा अनधकारी, बरेली को
इस आशय से प्रेनित नक निधामररत अवनध में
मरीजो को स्थािान्तररत कराते हुये नियमािुसार
कायमवाही करिे का कष्ट करें।

6.थािाध्यक्ष/ थािाप्रभारी, थािा-कोतवाली,
बरेली को सूचिाथम।

सक्षम प्रानधकारी"

Translated, this letter states that
against the petitioner's earlier application of
residential compounding proposal, the
petitioner has given an application on
03.10.2022 for the existing nursing home.
In that respect, according to the 83rd Board
meeting, in Rampur Garden the provision
in the Master plan for office land-use
approval being of office and related
activities after accepting impact fee; and,
there being no provision for nursing home
on a residential plot in the approved lay-out
for Rampur Garden, Bareilly in terms of
paragraph 6.1.5 of Chapter 6 of the Bareilly
Master Plan 2001-2021, therefore, the
compounding proposal for nursing home
submitted by the petitioner has been
rejected by the recommendation of the
Vice-Chairman
dated
17.10.2022.
Therefore, in the aforesaid matter, the
petitioner
is
directed
to
ensure
the
evacuation of the nursing home by
transferring all the patients admitted in Shri
Ganga Charan Aryavardhan Hospital into
any other Nursing home within 15 days
else the premises of the said nursing home
shall be sealed. The petitioner shall be
solely responsible for all the inconvenience
caused to the patients.

13. Indisputably, the petitioner has no
sanctioned plan for running nursing home
in its premises. The map submitted by the
petitioner
for
compounding
was
provisionally approved subject to the
condition that the petitioner would use the
compoundable
part
of
the
building
exclusively for residential purpose and the
non-compoundable part of the building
would
be demolished.
However,
the
petitioner did not comply with any of the
above conditions. Neither the petitioner
stopped
using
the
building
as
a
hospital/nursing home nor demolished the
non-compoundable part of the building.
The petitioner was issued warning by letter
dated 1.10.2022 and one more opportunity
was granted to ensure compliance. Instead
of
complying
with
the
conditions
stipulated, the petitioner continued to
violate the law with impunity.

14. It is noteworthy that in the
application dated 3.10.2022, the petitioner
admitted that the earlier compounding plan
was sanctioned for residential use. It thus
becomes clear that the petitioner has been
using the building for running hospital
showing no respect for the laws. The
applications dated 3.10.2022 are silent in
regard to the non-compoundable part of the
building which
was
required
to
be
demolished, but is also being used for
running the Hospital, putting at peril public
safety and security of the patients and
neighbours.

15. The request of the petitioner for
permitting the building to be used as a
nursing home/hospital has been turned
down on the ground that as per master-plan
2001-21 and decision taken in 83rd
meeting of the Board, the only noncompliant activity which is permissible
over a residential plot in Rampur Garden is
running of office and related activity, and
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that too, on payment of impact fee and not
a nursing home.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has not placed before us any material to
show that under the master-plan, zoning
regulations
or
the
building
by-laws,
running of a nursing home/hospital is
permissible in Rampur Garden even upon
payment of impact fee or conversion
charges.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance on the resolutions
passed by the BDA in its 82,nd 83rd and
84th Board meetings in contending that
there was proposal for regularising nonconfirmatory uses of the buildings in
Rampur
Garden
and
in
this
behalf
objections and suggestions were invited
from the public and, therefore, the
application of the petitioner should not
have been rejected by the Vice-Chairman,
BDA but should have been forwarded to
the State Government.

18. It is pertinent to note that in 82nd
Board meeting, objections and suggestions
were invited under Section 13 (3) in
relation to Rampur Garden and Model
Town Colonies. It was ratified in the 83rd
Board meeting.

19. Section 13 relates to amendment
of master-plan or the zonal development
plan. Relevant part of Section 13 is
reproduced below:-

"13. Amendment of Plan.- (1) The
Authority may make any amendments in the
master plan or the zonal development plan
as it thinks fit, being amendments which, in
its
opinion do
not
effect
important
alteration in the character of the plan and
which do not relate to the extent of land
uses or the standards of population density.

(2) The State Government may
make amendments in the master plan or the
zonal development plan whether such
amendments are of the nature specified in
Sub-section (1) or otherwise.

(3)
Before
making
any
amendments in the plan, the Authority, or
as the case may be, the State Government
shall publish a notice in at least one
newspaper having
circulation
in
the
development area inviting objections and
suggestions from any person with respect to
the proposed amendments before such date
as may be specified in the notice and shall
consider all objections and suggestions that
may be received by the Authority or the
State Government."

20. The power to amend the masterplan
is
vested
in
the
Development
Authority, if it does not effect important
alterations in the character of the plan and
also does not relate to the land uses or the
standard of population density. These
excepted categories require approval of the
State Government. The 82nd resolution of
BDA inviting objections and suggestions
under Section 13 (3) has to be interpreted
in the context of the above statutory
provisions. Concededly, the master-plan
which is in force earmarks Rampur Garden
as a residential area. At present, the only
deviant use permitted in the area is office
and related activities. This too, requires a
special permission from the Authority,
subject to payment of impact fee. However,
in no event, running of a hospital/nursing
home is permissible. The objections and
suggestions invited by BDA under Section
13 (3) would only enable it to make such
amendments as would not change the land
use of the area. There is no material on
record to show that the State Government is
12 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata & Anr. Vs. K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra
295
undertaking any exercise for change of the
land use of Rampur Garden as it would
require a notice to be published by it in
atleast one news paper. No such notice has
been brought on record. Consequently, the
submission advanced that the application
filed by the petitioner is referable to the
resolution passed by the Board inviting
objections under Section 13 (3) and the
State Government alone could have dealt
with it, is devoid of merit.

21. The other resolution which has
some relevance is the one passed at item
No.4 with the permission of the Chairman
in the Board's 83rd meeting. It is in
relation to proposed master-plan 2031. It
mentions that a presentation of the masterplan was given and the members made
suggestions for getting a booklet of
proposed master-plan printed for sale to
general public to facilitate filing of
objections and suggestions. One of the
suggestion
also
was
that
where
constructions had been raised in violation
of the prescribed uses, wherever possible,
the same should be adjusted and the land
use be determined in the light of
objections/suggestions. The said decision
taken in the Board only indicates that
preparation of new master-plan is in
progress. The proposals made by the
members and as recorded in the minutes of
the meeting of the Board are only
recommendatory in nature. The final
master-plan 2031 has still not seen the
light of the day. At best, the petitioner can
also make/submit its objection/proposal in
accordance with law, but at present, in
absence of any provision in the masterplan, building by-law or zoning regulation,
allowing usage of a residential plot in
Rampur
Garden
as
a
nursing
home/hospital, we find no illegality or
impropriety in the impugned decision.

22. The petitioner cannot be permitted
to continue using the building as a hospital in
violation of the existing law, throwing all
principles of town planning to winds and
least concerned with the safety and security
of even those who are availing medical
services in the hospital, being illegally run
from the building in question.

23. The contention that there exist
various other hospitals and commercial
establishments in Rampur Garden Colony
and no action is being taken against them, is
of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as no
negative parity can be claimed. The petitioner
has failed to demonstrate any illegality or
arbitrariness on part of the BDA that may
entail interference by this Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

24. Under the facts and circumstance of
the present case, no interference is called for.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 295
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ C No. 33783 of 2022

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
K.P.S. Educational Trust, Agra
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, Sri Kartikeya Saran