Bombay High Court
BABA DHONDIBA DALVI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed as there is no merit in directing the reopening of the hospital or in adjudicating the ex‑employees' service benefit claims.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a court order to restart the TB Sanatorium Hospital run by the Indian Red Cross Society in Ahmednagar and to decide service benefit claims of ex‑employees whose services were terminated due to the hospital's closure. The District Collector, who is also President of the Indian Red Cross Society, convened a meeting and concluded that patients are now treated free of cost at the District Hospital, the TB hospital's infrastructure is dilapidated, and insufficient grants preclude its reopening, thus finding no necessity to restart it. Regarding the ex‑employees, the Collector noted that the petitioners failed to produce appointment documents despite being asked, and therefore their claims could not be entertained. The Court, after reviewing the meeting minutes and the petitioners' failure to produce documents, held that there was no merit in either relief sought. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the petitioners were invited to submit the relevant documents to the Collector for consideration under law.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct the reopening of the TB Sanatorium Hospital operated by the Indian Red Cross Society.
- Whether ex‑employees of the closed TB Hospital are entitled to service benefits under law.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ petition
- public health
- hospital closure
- service benefits
- Indian Red Cross Society
- district collector
- administrative law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13209-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
936 WRIT PETITION NO.13815 OF 2021
BABA DHONDIBA DALVI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
….
Advocate for the Petitioners: Adv. Suryawanshi N.R.
AGP for Respondent/State: Mrs. V.S. Choudhari
Advocate for Respondent no.4: Mr. Kothari P.P.
…..
CORAM : N. B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
Dated : MARCH 18, 2026
ORDER :
. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeks following directions:-
"B. By way of appropriate writ or order or direction in the
like nature to direct the respondent no. 2 District
Collector/President of Indian Red Cross Society, Ahmednagar
Branch and respondent no.4 Secretary Indian Red Cross
Society, Ahmednagar Branch and T.B. Hospital at Arangaon to
arrange the meeting of the President and Members of
respondent no.4 and decide the issue of restarting the T.B.
Hospital run by Indian Red Cross Society Ahmednagar Branch
within the period of 8 weeks from the date of order by this
Hon'ble High Court.
C. By way of appropriate writ or order or direction in the
like nature to direct the respondent no.2 District
Collector/President of Indian Red Cross Society, Ahmednagar
Branch and respondent no. 4 Secretary Indian Red Cross
Society, Ahmednagar Branch and T.B. Hospital at Arangaon to
decide the claim of ex-employees of the T.B. Hospital run by
respondent no.4 to provide the benefit available to them
under the law for their services abruptly ended due to closure
of T.B. Hospital within the period of 8 weeks from the date of
order by this Hon'ble High Court."
2
2. A Reply is filed by Respondent No.2 – Collector stating that, in
order to consider the request made by the Petitioners regarding
restarting of T. B. Sanatorium Hospital, a meeting under his
Chairmanship was convened on 11.04.2022 at 04:00 p.m. in his office.
In the said meeting along with Petitioner No.2, Resident Deputy
Collector, Ahmednagar, Tahsildar General Administration, Secretary of
Indian Red Cross Society - Dr. Prakash Kankaria, Treasurer of Indian Red
Cross Society - Mr. Ashok Baldota, Secretary of T. B. Sanatorium Hospital
- Mr. Subhash V. Bagle, Treasurer of the said hospital Mr. Rajdendra Bora
and Dr. Bhushan Anbhule were present. In the discussions held in the
said meeting, it was revealed that the said hospital was receiving grants
from Woman and Child Development Department while it was
functional till the year 2008. After discussing and considering all the
relevant aspects, it was unanimously resolved that the patients of T.B.
are being treated at District Hospital free of costs and they are receiving
treatment from the State Government and therefore, there is no
necessity to restart T.B. Hospital. Moreover, the conditions of the said
hospital and its infrastructure are deteriorated. Additionally, the
Treasurer of the Managing Committee of the Indian Red Cross Society
informed that the said hospital was not receiving sufficient grants, hence
no patients were admitted in the hospital and subsequently, the Sub-
Committee decided to close the hospital. Indian Red Cross Society had
given the land to the T. B. Sanatorium Hospital on rental basis.
3
Considering all these aspects, we find no merit in the contention of the
Petitioners that Hospital should be restarted.
3. Adverting to another relief claimed by the Petitioners in respect of
service benefits arising out of the alleged abrupt termination of their
services due to closure of the T.B. Hospital, Respondent No. 2 has stated
in the affidavit that the Petitioners were called on 13.04.2022 and they
were asked to produce documents pertaining to their appointments in
the T.B. Hospital, however, the Petitioners failed to produce such
documents before Respondent No.2. Therefore, the request of the
Petitioners in respect of deciding the claims of Ex-employees of T.B.
hospital could not be considered. It is further mentioned in the Reply
that proper care is being taken of the landed properties of the Indian
Red Cross Society.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we find no merit in the petition, the
petition is accordingly dismissed.
5. At this stage, learned Advocate for the Petitioners states that she
has relevant documents, which Respondent no.2 sought from the
Petitioners. If that is so, the Petitioners may produce the same before
Respondent no.2, who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.) (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
GGP/SGA
Checking your session…