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." 2026:BHC-AUG:13209-DB 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