The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur for refusing to renew the license to run a medical establishment despite an injunction from the civil court.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anaya Health Centre and Another.
The petition has been filed for following relief:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record quash and set aside order dated 14/17.06.2024 passed by Respondent No 4 the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities / Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur to renew the registration of the hospital being run under the name and style of Anaya Health Centre, Saharanpur.”
The Court noted that,
Earlier, the husband of respondent-5 namely, Arun Kumar Jain, executed a rent-deed in favour of the petitioner no 2, to run a medical establishment/nursing home at Bajoria Road, Saharanpur, UP (disputed premises). That rent-deed was valid from 01.04.2023 to 29.02.2024 i.e for the period of 11 months, against monthly rent Rs 1 lakh.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner has continued in possession over the said premises, even after expiry of that rent-deed. Against that rent-deed executed by the husband of the private respondent, petitioner no 2 obtained registration of his medical establishment Anaya Health Centre (petitioner no1), at the ‘disputed premises’. That registration was granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur on 16.05.2023. It was valid for one year, upto 30.04.2024.
The rent-deed executed in favour of petitioner no 2, with respect to the ‘disputed premises’, has not been renewed. In fact, private respondent-5 is seeking to evict the petitioner from the ‘disputed premises’. She has filed an Eviction Application.
It is further admitted between the parties, arising from such dispute, petitioner no 2 has approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in Original Suit. Therein temporary injunction has been granted vide order dated 23.02.2024. It has been confirmed by order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the said Court.
It is also undisputed that the above order has not been set aside or stayed or vacated, till date. Chetan Chatterjee, counsel for the private respondent informs that the limitation to file appeal against the order dated 10.10.2024 survives. At the same time, he admits that such an appeal has not yet been filed.
In such facts, petitioner no 2 applied for renewal of registration of his medical establishment, by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, for further one year. At the same time, the private respondent no 5 approached the Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur against renewal, proposed.
Acting on the said note made by the Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur issued further instructions to the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur on 18.6.2024.
Being thus instructed, directed and dictated, the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur passed an order dated 22.06.2024. Thus, the rejection has arisen since the petitioner did not have and he did not file a copy of any subsisting rent-deed in his favour, with respect to the ‘disputed premises’.
In such circumstances, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has overreached the earlier order of the Court. Instead of making compliance of the order dated 19.07.2024, the CMO has practically reiterated his earlier reasoning – that the registration cannot be renewed in favour of the petitioner for reason of rent-deed not subsisting/not uploaded on the web-portal. No other reason has been recorded, either with respect to infringement of any law, alleged or found against the petitioner, or for other reasons.
On the other hand, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 read with the Government Order dated 7.1.2022, two procedures exist to obtain fresh registration and renewal of registration of medical establishments. Insofar as the petitioner’s medical establishment has less than 50 beds, the procedure prescribed under the Government Order 26.6.2018, would apply. The form on which the application for registration/renewal is to be made, is also provided on the designated website of the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the first place, the reason given in the impugned order, no longer exists. That issue was raised by the petitioner in Anaya Health Centre (supra). It was squarely answered in his favour on the reasoning, existence of a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent-5, with respect to continuance of tenancy of the petitioner over the ‘disputed premises’, is extraneous to the issue of registration of medical establishment of the petitioner. That order was never challenged by any party. It has attained finality.
Though, the respondent no 5 may continue to complain and clamour and seek eviction of the petitioner, it is fundamental to the rule of law that the injunction order granted by the civil Court must be given full effect. It has to be recognized, obeyed and abided without any protest, except by seeking legal remedies thereagainst.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is complying with the terms of that order dated 23.02.2024 as confirmed by the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur.
He deposited Rs 1,00,000/- per month earlier, and presently he is depositing Rs 1,10,000/- per month with the Court below, towards use and occupation charges.
That done, it neither survives to the private respondent to continue to hold a belief that she may resist the renewal of the registration of the petitioner nor it ever becomes open to the State respondents to examine that issue any further. The fact that such re-examination has involved overreaching the decision of the Court, is itself alarming.
What is inexcusable in the facts of the case is that the impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order (passed by this Court), but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner, prior to that judicial order. Once, the order of the writ Court had been served on the CMO, Saharanpur, it was his bounden duty to make firm compliance of the same. It was not for him to look the other way or to abide by a wrong administrative command, given by a superior administrative authority.
“No statutory law has been shown to us as may mandate that a medical establishment may not be provisionally/conditionally registered on the strength of a Court order, as to tenancy rights. In view of the order passed by the Court below, it was clearly in the knowledge of the CMO (for the limited purposes of renewal of rent-deed), that the petitioner’s occupancy rights had been protected by a judicial order. He had to provisionally/conditionally treat the petitioner at parity with a person claiming registration against a valid rent-deed.
Merely because the electronic portal provided by the State functionaries did not provide a procedurally convenient resolution for such eventuality i.e it did not provide an option whereby the petitioner may have uploaded the correct status of the ‘disputed premises’, it did not and it could not have led to rejection of the renewal application, filed by the petitioner.
The action taken by the CMO smacks of legal mala fides. It is wholly unsustainable. It requires corrective action to be taken. In that, we find that the petitioner has needlessly been made run to this Court twice, solely for reason rule of law knowingly violated by the CMO, Saharanpur,” the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
“The order dated 14/17.06.2024 is quashed. The Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur is directed to forthwith renew the registration of the petitioner, subject to outcome/further orders in the pending civil litigation, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur and/or Eviction Application, pending before the prescribed authority under the rent law. It is made clear, subject to any order of eviction being executed against the petitioner by a Court/authority, the provisional/conditional registration provided to him may be exposed to proceedings for cancellation.
For the aforesaid conduct offered by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, cost of Rs 1 lakh is imposed on the said officer to be recovered personally,” the order reads.
The post appeared first on .
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Anaya Health Centre and Another.
The petition has been filed for following relief:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record quash and set aside order dated 14/17.06.2024 passed by Respondent No 4 the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities / Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur to renew the registration of the hospital being run under the name and style of Anaya Health Centre, Saharanpur.”
The Court noted that,
Earlier, the husband of respondent-5 namely, Arun Kumar Jain, executed a rent-deed in favour of the petitioner no 2, to run a medical establishment/nursing home at Bajoria Road, Saharanpur, UP (disputed premises). That rent-deed was valid from 01.04.2023 to 29.02.2024 i.e for the period of 11 months, against monthly rent Rs 1 lakh.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner has continued in possession over the said premises, even after expiry of that rent-deed. Against that rent-deed executed by the husband of the private respondent, petitioner no 2 obtained registration of his medical establishment Anaya Health Centre (petitioner no1), at the ‘disputed premises’. That registration was granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur on 16.05.2023. It was valid for one year, upto 30.04.2024.
The rent-deed executed in favour of petitioner no 2, with respect to the ‘disputed premises’, has not been renewed. In fact, private respondent-5 is seeking to evict the petitioner from the ‘disputed premises’. She has filed an Eviction Application.
It is further admitted between the parties, arising from such dispute, petitioner no 2 has approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in Original Suit. Therein temporary injunction has been granted vide order dated 23.02.2024. It has been confirmed by order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the said Court.
It is also undisputed that the above order has not been set aside or stayed or vacated, till date. Chetan Chatterjee, counsel for the private respondent informs that the limitation to file appeal against the order dated 10.10.2024 survives. At the same time, he admits that such an appeal has not yet been filed.
In such facts, petitioner no 2 applied for renewal of registration of his medical establishment, by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, for further one year. At the same time, the private respondent no 5 approached the Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur against renewal, proposed.
Acting on the said note made by the Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur issued further instructions to the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur on 18.6.2024.
Being thus instructed, directed and dictated, the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur passed an order dated 22.06.2024. Thus, the rejection has arisen since the petitioner did not have and he did not file a copy of any subsisting rent-deed in his favour, with respect to the ‘disputed premises’.
In such circumstances, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has overreached the earlier order of the Court. Instead of making compliance of the order dated 19.07.2024, the CMO has practically reiterated his earlier reasoning – that the registration cannot be renewed in favour of the petitioner for reason of rent-deed not subsisting/not uploaded on the web-portal. No other reason has been recorded, either with respect to infringement of any law, alleged or found against the petitioner, or for other reasons.
On the other hand, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 read with the Government Order dated 7.1.2022, two procedures exist to obtain fresh registration and renewal of registration of medical establishments. Insofar as the petitioner’s medical establishment has less than 50 beds, the procedure prescribed under the Government Order 26.6.2018, would apply. The form on which the application for registration/renewal is to be made, is also provided on the designated website of the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the first place, the reason given in the impugned order, no longer exists. That issue was raised by the petitioner in Anaya Health Centre (supra). It was squarely answered in his favour on the reasoning, existence of a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent-5, with respect to continuance of tenancy of the petitioner over the ‘disputed premises’, is extraneous to the issue of registration of medical establishment of the petitioner. That order was never challenged by any party. It has attained finality.
Though, the respondent no 5 may continue to complain and clamour and seek eviction of the petitioner, it is fundamental to the rule of law that the injunction order granted by the civil Court must be given full effect. It has to be recognized, obeyed and abided without any protest, except by seeking legal remedies thereagainst.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is complying with the terms of that order dated 23.02.2024 as confirmed by the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur.
He deposited Rs 1,00,000/- per month earlier, and presently he is depositing Rs 1,10,000/- per month with the Court below, towards use and occupation charges.
That done, it neither survives to the private respondent to continue to hold a belief that she may resist the renewal of the registration of the petitioner nor it ever becomes open to the State respondents to examine that issue any further. The fact that such re-examination has involved overreaching the decision of the Court, is itself alarming.
What is inexcusable in the facts of the case is that the impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order (passed by this Court), but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner, prior to that judicial order. Once, the order of the writ Court had been served on the CMO, Saharanpur, it was his bounden duty to make firm compliance of the same. It was not for him to look the other way or to abide by a wrong administrative command, given by a superior administrative authority.
“No statutory law has been shown to us as may mandate that a medical establishment may not be provisionally/conditionally registered on the strength of a Court order, as to tenancy rights. In view of the order passed by the Court below, it was clearly in the knowledge of the CMO (for the limited purposes of renewal of rent-deed), that the petitioner’s occupancy rights had been protected by a judicial order. He had to provisionally/conditionally treat the petitioner at parity with a person claiming registration against a valid rent-deed.
Merely because the electronic portal provided by the State functionaries did not provide a procedurally convenient resolution for such eventuality i.e it did not provide an option whereby the petitioner may have uploaded the correct status of the ‘disputed premises’, it did not and it could not have led to rejection of the renewal application, filed by the petitioner.
The action taken by the CMO smacks of legal mala fides. It is wholly unsustainable. It requires corrective action to be taken. In that, we find that the petitioner has needlessly been made run to this Court twice, solely for reason rule of law knowingly violated by the CMO, Saharanpur,” the Court further observed while allowing the petition.
“The order dated 14/17.06.2024 is quashed. The Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur is directed to forthwith renew the registration of the petitioner, subject to outcome/further orders in the pending civil litigation, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur and/or Eviction Application, pending before the prescribed authority under the rent law. It is made clear, subject to any order of eviction being executed against the petitioner by a Court/authority, the provisional/conditional registration provided to him may be exposed to proceedings for cancellation.
For the aforesaid conduct offered by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, cost of Rs 1 lakh is imposed on the said officer to be recovered personally,” the order reads.
The post appeared first on .