“Smacks Of Legal Malafides”: Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Chief Medical Officer For Defying Earlier Order

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur for defying the earlier order of the High Court and denying renewal of license of running medical establishment despite a temporary injunction by the Civil Court.

Observing that the CMO had overreached the earlier order passed by the High Court in the same dispute, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held

“What is inexcusable in the facts of the present 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.”

Factual Background

The husband of respondent no. 5, 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, U.P. for a period of 11 months upto 29.02.2024. Petitioner continued possession of the disputed premises even after expiry of lease and obtained registration of his medical establishment Anaya Health Centre based on the rent deed. This registration granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur on 16.05.2023, was valid till 30.04.2024.

The rent deed was not renewed. Respondent no. 5 filed for eviction of the petitioner from the premises. In a suit by the petitioners, they were granted temporary injunction subject to payment of monthly rent for the premises. The order of temporary injunction was had not been challenged by the private respondents.

When petitioner applied for the renewal of registration of the Health Center, the respondents filed their objection. The Divisional Commissioner, Saharanpur issued a note stating that the CMO cannot renew the license without a valid rent deed. Subsequently, the District Magistrate issued direction to the CMO to take action against the Petitioner for running the Health center without permission.

Consequently, the CMO passed an order rejecting the renewal application of the petitioner on grounds that there was no valid rent agreement. In a petition challenging this order, the High Court held that the dispute regarding rights over the property cannot be a ground to not grant renewal of medical license to the petitioner. The CMO was directed to pass fresh orders after hearing both parties.

The CMO directed the petitioners to cease operations till rent agreement was renewed and uploaded on the portal. Challenging this order of the CMO, petitioner argued that the CMO had repeated its earlier order and did not mention any infringement of law done by the petitioner.

Per contra, counsel for state argued that renewal/ registration of the petitioner establishment had to be made in conformity with the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 in the application form on the website of Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare.

It was argued that there was no subsisting rent agreement between the petitioner and private respondents so as to enable them to apply for renewal of their license. It was argued that

“unless a medical establishment strictly complies with the requirement of law and unless rent agreement etc., are shown to exist to the State authorities, the public at large and the State may not be exposed to undue risks in the event of any breach of law etc. committed by a person seeking registration.”

High Court Verdict

The Court referred to the earlier judgment in Anaya Health Centre and Another Vs. State of U.P.and 4 Others where the Allahabad High Court, while granting relief to the same petitioner had held that dispute regarding tenancy does not affect the right of the petitioner seeking registration/ renewal of medical establishment. Since the order of the High Court was not challenged, the Court held that it had attained finality.

The Court further observed that in compliance of the injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur, the petitioner was depositing the amount as per the directions of the Court 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 became 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.”

The Court observed that the settlement attempt by the CMO was valid, however, it could not reject the renewal application made by the petitioner when the dispute regarding tenancy was still pending before the Civil Court.

Further, relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari Vs. Union of India, the Court held that the guidelines relied on by the State are not statutory in nature. It was held that the bar on the portal was not mandatory one, and that the authorities prevented petitioner from getting a renewal when he enjoyed the possession of the property by order of the Civil Court.

It was held that once the CMO had knowledge of the interim injunction, it ought to have treated the petitioner at par with any person who has a valid rent agreement.

Holding that the “action taken by the CMO smacks of legal malafides,” the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on CMO, Saharanpur to be recovered from his personal account. It was further directed that the amount by deposited in the account of District Magistrate, Saharanpur and be disbursed to the most needy senior citizens as minimal maintenance allowances in the district.

Click Here To Read/Download Order