In High Court

The orders were given by a division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna in a petition filed by Hardcastle Restaurants, challenging the BMC8217;s refusal to renew the eating house license after its expiry in December 1998. With the bench agreeing with the BMC counsel, N V Sanglikar8217;s submission that BMC could not renew the license if the restaurant continues to have tables and chairs in the garden and a parcel counter therein, the petitioners were allowed to withdraw the plea.

Following an agreement with New Empire Restaurant, the petitioners set up McDonald8217;s early this year. While BMC gave them licenses under the Shops and Establishments Act, the eating house license that was to have been transferred to them was notforthcoming.

Sanglikar today claimed that the license could not be granted since the petitioners had covered the open garden outside the restaurant with a rain shed and were using it for their patrons. Around 19 tables and 23 chairs as well as a parcel counter have caused queues of patrons to spill onto the streets. She submitted that under DC rules, the space should have been left as an open area. Justice Srikrishna accepted her contention that in any case, the restaurant did not have any eating house license at present and would have to seek a separate license for use of the open garden.

Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners to apply for an eating house license. BMC will have to decide on the application within four weeks after its submission. Till then, the petitioners gave an undertaking that the garden restaurant will not be used.

Medical students8217; plea to be studied

High Court today directed the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to reconsider admission claims of twofemale students in medical colleges of their choice, which were earlier restricted due to lack of seats.

The recognition granted to D Y Patil Women8217;s Medical College, Pune has resulted in an increase of 100 seats for medical college students. However, this development took place after the first round of admissions, and students who could have been merited the seats lost the option. Two such students moved high court for a second chance. The division bench of Justice A V Savant and R J Kochar ordered the government and university to reconsider their claim on merit. It also ordered a refund of fees from the college where the students were admitted.

One of the petitioner-students, Thane-based Gayatri Apte, had opted for a payment seat in a dental college at Nagpur due to non-availability of seats in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai, Pune and Nasik. She learnt of the 100 extra seats in D Y Patil Pune college and another Talegaon college. After being denied a chance to reapply, she moved court, saying students securingless percentage will be granted these extra seats, whereas she will be denied the option for no fault of her own.

The other student, Pune-based Shraddha Pradhan, had opted for a payment seat in a Dhule medical college. She stated that she could have chosen a college closer home had she known of the 100 seats at D Y Patil Women8217;s College, Pimpri. If the women8217;s college was granted recognition after the first round of admission, the admission rules should allow the students to exercise their option even in the second round, her petition states.

Policy on Shivaji Park usage today

A division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna on Tuesday gave the state government pleader R V Govilkar two days to clarify the state government8217;s policy on the use of Shivaji Park.

The directions came in a petition filed by the Bombay Small Scale Industries Association that had on May 25, 1999, asked BMC for permission to hold a public meeting there. However, BMC officials refused, citing that aletter from the then personal secretary of the chief minister, Arun Bongirwar written to the then BMC chief, Janardhan Jadhav, stated that Shivaji Park was to be used exclusively for sports and public meetings. The DMC, Zone II, Amarnath Dubey apparently told the association that the public meetings were only for political parties. The petitioners then moved court, claiming the action was bad in law. With R V Govilkar asking for time to clarify the issue, Justice Srikrishna recorded that despite an earlier order of June 25, 1999, directing the state to file an affidavit, the state had failed to do so. The bench then gave the state two days for details on the decision.