Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Mescot Hospital and Research Centre Pvt.Ltd. v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.4044 of 2015 (Gwalior); Decided on 3.8.2015.
Held : In view of aforesaid analysis, in my view, section 2(a) and amendment in section 6(3) must be treated as procedural and are, therefore, retrospective in nature. Thus, the notification/order dated 30.3.2007 must be presumed to be issued under the enabling provision. Thus, I am unabnle to hold that no appellate authority exists for the present petitioner to prefer the appeal. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of notification/order dated 30.3.2007.
[Para 20
(2) Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Rules, 1997 (M.P.) -- R.20 -- Schedule (k) -- rules are made in aid to main Adhiniyam -- rule cannot supplant main provision of Adhiniyam -- rule 20 cannot override or prevail over provisions of Adhiniyam -- subject matter of show cause and final order is within competence of respondent No.4 to deal and decide question of cancellation of licence.
Held : So far rule 20 of the Rules is concerned wherein State Government is still shown to be appellate authority, suffice it so say that rules are always made in aid to the main Adhiniyam. Rule cannot supplant the main provision of the Adhiniyam. In view of finding that amendment in section 2(a) and 6(3) is retrospective in nature, the appellate authority as per order dated 30.3.2007 must be held to be competent and in consonance with the Adhiniyam.
In the present case, sections 6(3) and (4) of the Adhiniyam prescribe a remedy of appeal. It also empowers the appellate authority to pass necessary interim orders. Thus, petitioner has at alternative, statutory and efficacious remedy. Hence, in my view, the petitioner must be relegated to avail the said remedy. (1878)3 AC 582, AIR 1927 PC 242, AIR 1975 SC 1843, AIR 1990 SC 209, AIR 1994 SC 2623, (1966)1 All ER 524 referred to. (1994)4 SCC 602 followed.
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- maintainability of -- rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction because of availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion -- if an effective and efficacious remedy is available -- High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction under same -- petitioner must be relegated to avail said remedy -- petition not entertained -- dismissed.
Held : This is settled in law that rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction because of availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulstion. The competence of respondent No.4 is not in question. The subject-matter of show cause and final order also shows that it was within the competence of respondent No.4 to deal and decide the question of cancellation of licence .... If an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2010)14 SCC 553 and (2005)8 SCC 264 followed.
¼1½ mip;kZx`g rFkk :tksipkj laca/kh LFkkukiuk,¡ ¼jftLVªhdj.k rFkk vuqKkiu½ vf/kfu;e] 1973 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 4¼4½] 5] 6¼3½] 6¼4½] 6¼6½ rFkk 2¼d½ && fpfdRlky; ds jftLVªhdj.k dk jn~ndj.k && f'kdk;r ij] dyDVj us izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dks tk¡p ds fy, funsf'kr fd;k && dFkuksa ds vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i'pkr~ fjiksVZ izLrqr dh xbZ && dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i= && tk¡p dk iqu%LFkku fu/kkZj.k djus ds fy, vH;kosnu izLrqr && vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr && ;fn vuqKfIr dh 'krksZsa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k tkrk gS && èkkjk 5 dk voyac fy;k tk ldrk gS && /kkjk 6¼3½ rFkk 6¼4½ vihy dk mipkj fofgr djrh gS rFkk vihyh; izkf/kdkjh dks vko';d varfje vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, l'kDr djrh gS && ;kph ds ikl vkuqdfYid] dkuwuh rFkk izHkkodkjh mipkj gS && ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh xbZ && [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoZdfFkr fo'ys"k.k dh n`f"V ls] esjs er esa /kkjk 2¼d½ rFkk /kkjk 6¼3½ dk la'kks/ku izfØ;kRed ekuuk pkfg, rFkk blfy,] Hkwry{kh izÑfr ds gSaA bl izdkj vf/klwpuk@vkns'k fnukad 30-3-2007 dh leFkZ cukus okys mica/k ds v/khu tkjh gksus dh mi/kkj.kk dh tkuk pkfg,A bl izdkj] eSa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa vleFkZ gw¡ fd orZeku ;kph dks vihy izLrqr djus ds fy, dksbZ vihyh; izkf/kdkjh fo|eku ugha gSA ;g /;ku nsus ;ksX; gS fd ;kph us vf/klwpuk@vkns'k fnukad 30-3-2007 dh fof/kekU;rk vk{ksfir ugha dh gSSA
¼2½ mip;kZx`g rFkk :tksipkj laca/kh LFkkukiuk,¡ ¼jftLVªhdj.k rFkk vuqKkiu½ fu;e] 1997 ¼e-iz-½ && fu-20 && vuqlwph ¼V½ && fu;e eq[; vf/kfu;e dh lgk;rk ds fy, cuk, tkrs gSa && fu;e] vf/kfu;e ds eq[; mica/k dk LFkku ugha ys ldrk && fu;e 20 vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ij vfHkHkkoh ugha gks ldrk && dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i= rFkk vafre vkns'k dh fo"k;&oLrq izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dh vuqKfIr ds jn~ndj.k ds iz'u dk foospu djus rFkk fofu'p; djus dh {kerk ds varxZr gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tgk¡ rd fu;eksa ds fu;e 20 dk ljksdkj gS] ftlesa jkT; ljdkj dks vc Hkh vihyh; izkf/kdkjh ds :i esa n'kkZ;k x;k gSA ;g dguk i;kZIr gS fd fu;e ges'kk eq[; vf/kfu;e dh lgk;rk ds fy, cuk, tkrs gSaA fu;e] vfèkfu;e ds eq[; mica/k dk LFkku ugha ys ldrkA bl fu"d"kZ dh n`f"V ls fd èkkjk 2¼d½ rFkk 6¼3½ dk la'kks/ku Hkwry{kh izÑfr dk gS] vkns'k fnukad
30-3-2007 ds vuqlkj vihyh; izkf/kdkjh dks l{ke rFkk vf/kfu;e ds vuqdwy ekU; gksuk pkfg,A
izLrqr ekeys esa] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6¼3½ rFkk 6¼4½ vihy dk mipkj fofgr djrh gSA ;g vihyh; izkf/kdkjh dks vko';d varfje vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, l'kDr Hkh djrh gSA bl izdkj] ;kph ds ikl vkuqdfYid] dkuwuh rFkk izHkkodkjh mipkj gSA blfy,] esjs er esa] ;kph dks dfFkr mipkj ykHk izkIr djus ds fy, fLFkfr esa gksuk pkfg,A ¼1878½3,lh 582], vkb vkj 1927 ih lh 242], vkb vkj 1975,l lh 1843], vkb vkj 1990,l lh 209], vkb vkj 1994,l lh 2623] ¼1966½1 vkWy bZvkj 524 fufnZ"VA ¼1994½4,l lh lh 602 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && dh iks"k.kh;rk && vuqdYih mipkj dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds viotZu dk fu;e] foosdkf/kdkj dk fu;e gS rFkk ck/;dj.k dk ugha && ;fn fØ;k'khy rFkk izHkkodkjh mipkj miyC/k gS && mPp U;k;ky; lkekU;r;k viuh vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx lafo/kku ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ugha djsxk && ;kph dks dfFkr mipkj dk ykHk mBkus ds fy, fLFkfr esa gksuk pkfg, && ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh xbZ && [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fof/k esa ;g fuf'pr gS fd vuqdYih mipkj dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds otZu dk fu;e foosdkf/kdkj dk fu;e gS rFkk ckè;dj.k dk ughaA izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dh l{kerk iz'uk/khu ugha gSA dkj.k crkvks lwpuk&i= rFkk vafre vkns'k dh fo"k;&oLrq izR;FkhZ Ø-4 dh vuqKfIr ds jn~ndj.k ds iz'u dk foospu djus rFkk fofu'p; djus dh {kerk ds varxZr gSA ------ ;fn fØ;k'khy rFkk izHkkodkjh mipkj miyC/k gS] mPp U;k;ky; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx lkekU;r;k ugha djsxkA ¼2010½14,l lh lh 553 rFkk ¼2005½8,l lh lh 264 vuqlfjrA
1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 24.6.2015, whereby the registration of petitioner hospital is cancelled by respondent No.4.
2. Shri R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner hospital was registered under Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 (for brevity, the 'Adhiniyam') on 16.8.2010. On 9.3.2015, one Manoj Upadhyay made a complaint (Annexure P-5) to the Collector. In turn, the Collector directed the CMHO for enquiry in relation to complaint preferred by Manoj Upadhyay. the CMHO, in turn, appointed a two-member committee comprising of Dr.Sunil Agarwal and Dr. Prabhat Kaushal. On 18.3.2015 (Annexure P-7) and 23.3.2015 (Annexure P-7), statements of Dr. Shivhare and Manoj Upadhyay were recorded by the committee. The committee submitted its report on 31.3.2015 (Annexure P-7). On 10.4.2015 (Annexure P-8), a show cause notice was issued on the basis of said enquiry report. On 15.4.2015 (Annexure P-9), the petitioner made request to respondent No.4 to supply him copy of the report. In addition, extention of time was prayed for. On 11.4.2015 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner preferred a representation for relocation of enquiry. Another representation dated 23.4.2015 (Annexure P-10) was filed by the petitioner to respondents No.1 and 2 for relocation of enquiry. Shri Singh, learned senior counsel submits that on 25.4.2015 the Collector summoned all including CMHO to remain present on 28.4.2015. On 26.4.2015 the petitioner made a request to CMHO for referring the enquiry to State Leval Higher Centre. On 2.5.2015 the petitioner made a request to CMHO to keep the proceedings in abeyance. On 24.6.2015, the impugned order is passed, whereby registration of petitioner hospital is cancelled.
3. Shri R.N. Singh criticized this order by contending that the decision making process, adopted by the respondents is vitiated/polluted. The same were not in consonance with principles of natural justice. The full, reasonable and adequate opportunity of defence was not provided to him. He reiterated his stand which was taken before this Court on 17.7.2015 which was recorded in extenso by this Court in the said order dated 17.7.2015.
4. To elaborate, Shri Singh, learned senior counsel submits that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner along with show cause notice. This deprived the petitioner to file an effective reply in the matter. One Seema Shivhare's statement was recorded in the enquiry but in final order there is no whisper about her statement.
5. During the course of argument, Shri Singh fairly submits that although there exists an appellate remedy as per section 6 of the Adhiniyam, the petitioner cannot be relegated to avail the said remedy for twin reasons. Firstly, the decision making process suffers from serious procedural impropriety and violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, as per (2003)2 SCC 107 (Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others), the alternative remedy is not a bar. Secondly, when said Adhiniyam was initially brought into force, as per section 6(3), State Government was the appellate authority. In the year 2008, by way of M.P. Adhiniyam 16 of 2008, section 2(a) was inserted. Similarly, in section 6(3), the words "State Government" were substituted by the word "appellate authority". He submits that the Government has placed reliance on notification dated 30.3.2007, whereby Secretary of Department of Health and Family Welfare is appointed as appellate authority. The said order/notification is of no assistance to the other side because in the year 2007, admittedly the State Government was the appellate authority. Section 2(a) was inserted for the first time in 2008. There is no notification appointing any appellate authority after 2008. Hence, earlier notification dated 30.3.2007 cannot be treated to be a
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
