SDMC issues notice on extra residential construction; Doctor approaches Delhi HC
The doctor claimed that the construction at her South Delhi residence is compoundable or regularisable upon payment of charges and that similar structures have also been erected by her neighbours but no action has been taken against them for the past many years.
New Delhi - A woman doctor, serving in a government hospital, has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the notices issued by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation concerning the extra construction undertaken at her residential premises.
The doctor claimed that the construction at her South Delhi residence is compoundable or regularisable upon payment of charges and that similar structures have also been erected by her neighbours but no action has been taken against them for the past many years.
Read Also: Centre partially relaxes restrictions imposed on export of Non-Medical, Non-Surgical Masks
Justice Najmi Waziri, in an order passed on July 10, asked the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) to treat the doctor's petition as representation and that a decision be taken and communicated to her within four weeks.
The court said if the corporation requires any additional documents, they shall be supplied to it by the doctor within two weeks of receipt of such notice and compounding charges, that may be payable, shall be paid by her on receiving communication from the SDMC.
The counsel for SDMC assured the court that in the interim no adverse action shall be taken against the woman.
The counsel also said if the petitioner will apply for regularisation or compounding of the construction as per rules, her representation shall be duly considered as per law.
He further submitted that in view of the current COVID-19 pandemic, special care shall be taken not to disturb her residential condition especially since she is a medical professional rendering frontline services at a government hospital.
The doctor claimed that she was being singled out and her representation to the corporation to regularise or compound the construction in terms of the extant rules was summarily rejected by the authorities by a simple statement -- "Not found satisfactory" and that the order was non-speaking.
Read Also: Is there any complaint against Doctors refusing COVID treatment: HC asks Karnataka Medical Council
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.