An individual does not have the legal right to challenge the renewal of a hospital's license under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 1950, unless they can prove a specific legal or fundamental right infringement.

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of a writ petitioner and is directed against the order dated 16th July, 2004 passed by a learned single Judge by which His Lordship dismissed the writ application on the ground that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the said writ application.

2. Being dissatisfied, the writ petitioner has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present mandamus appeal may be summed up thus :

(a) Sumanta Mukherjee, the son of the present appellant, met with an accident on 14th January, 2001 at 8:10 a.m. and was immediately taken to the Ruby General Hospital. According to the appellant, the Hospital authority insisted on depositing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for the treatment of his son. The said Sumanta Mukherjee had a Mediclaim policy with the New India Assurance Company Limited and promised to pay the said amount but the Hospital authority, after starting initial treatment, refused to continue with the same, for non-payment of the amount, as a result, he was removed to the National Medical College and Hospital where the said Hospital authority declared him "brought dead".

(b) The present appellant lodged a complaint before the Police authority but according to him, no step was taken against the Hospital authority.

(c) The appellant came to know from the report published in the newspapers that the Ruby General Hospital had violated the provisions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and a notice was issued by the Health Department thereby directing that the Hospital be closed. It also appeared in the daily newspapers on 30th May, 2002 that the State Health Minister refused to renew the licence to the said authority for violation of the provision of the Act. Subsequently, the Hospital authorities were directed to give an undertaking that they would not return any critical patient and on such undertaking, the State respondent decided to renew their licence temporarily for every three months.

(d) It further appeared that the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal gave a hearing to the Hospital authority and thereafter, on accepting the undertaking given by one Sajal Dutta on behalf of Ruby General Hospital, allowed the prayer of the Hospital and permitted them to function further.

(e) In the writ application, the appellant prayed for mandamus directing the State respondent to enforce the order of cancellation of licence of Ruby General Hospital and further commanding them to withdraw the order of renewal granted on 11th June, 2002 and to take step in terms of Section 7 of the said Act. The provision contained in Section 4-A of the Act was also claimed to be ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(f) Prior to the filing of the present writ application, the appellant filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Division Bench of this Court being W. P. No. 10313 (W) of 2002 but on 2nd August, 2002 the learned counsel for the appellant withdrew the said Public Interest Litigation without prejudice to the right of his client to file appropriate writ application in the proper forum. The Division Bench accepted the said prayer and the Public Interest Litigation was dismissed as withdrawn.

(g) The petitioner thereafter filed the writ application out of which the present appeal arises and the learned single Judge by the order dated 16th July, 2004 rejected the writ application as not maintainable.

4. Being dissatisfied, the appellant has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

5. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously contended before us that the learned single Judge erred in law in holding that the present writ application is not maintainable. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that his client also filed a claim for compensation against the Hospital authority before the Consumer Forum and ultimately, the National Forum di